IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v10y2022i2p19-d804161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Proportion of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published in the Annals of Surgery Provide Definitive Conclusions—A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew G. Davey

    (Discipline of Surgery, The Lambe Institution of Translational Research, National University of Ireland, H91 YR71 Galway, Ireland)

  • Martin S. Davey

    (Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, H91 YR71 Galway, Ireland)

  • Aoife J. Lowery

    (Discipline of Surgery, The Lambe Institution of Translational Research, National University of Ireland, H91 YR71 Galway, Ireland
    Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, H91 YR71 Galway, Ireland)

  • Michael J. Kerin

    (Discipline of Surgery, The Lambe Institution of Translational Research, National University of Ireland, H91 YR71 Galway, Ireland
    Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, H91 YR71 Galway, Ireland)

Abstract

Objective: To perform a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the Annals of Surgery during a 10-year eligibility period and determine the unambiguity of concluding statements of these reviews published in the journal. Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses integrate clinically pertinent results from several studies to replicate large-volume, ‘real world’ scenarios. While the assimilation of results from multiple high-quality trials are at the summit of the evidence-base, the increasing prevalence of reviews using low-to-moderate levels of evidence (LOE) limit the ability to make evidence-based conclusions. In surgery, increasing LOE are typically associated with publication in the highest impact surgical journals (e.g., Annals of Surgery ). Methods: A systematic review was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search of the Annals of Surgery for articles published between 2011 and 2020 was conducted. Descriptive statistics were used. Results: In total, 186 systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) were published in the Annals of Surgery between 2011 and 2020 (131 systematic reviews with meta-analyses (70.4%) and 55 without meta-analyses (29.6%)). Study data were from 22,656,192 subjects. In total, 94 studies were from European research institutes (50.5%) and 58 were from North American institutes (31.2%). Overall, 75.3% of studies provided conclusive statements (140/186). Year of publication ( P = 0.969), country of publication ( P = 0.971), region of publication ( P = 0.416), LOE ( P = 0.342), surgery performed ( P = 0.736), and two-year impact factor (IF) ( P = 0.251) failed to correlate with conclusive statements. Of note, 80.9% (106/131) of meta-analyses and 61.8% of systematic reviews (34/55) provided conclusive statements ( P = 0.009, †). Conclusions: Over 75% of systematic reviews published in the Annals of Surgery culminated in conclusive statements. Interestingly, meta-analyses were more likely to provide conclusive statements than systematic reviews, while LOE and IF failed to do so.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew G. Davey & Martin S. Davey & Aoife J. Lowery & Michael J. Kerin, 2022. "What Proportion of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published in the Annals of Surgery Provide Definitive Conclusions—A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-7, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:2:p:19-:d:804161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/2/19/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/2/19/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    2. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    6. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    7. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    8. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    11. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    12. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    14. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    15. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    17. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    18. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    19. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:2:p:19-:d:804161. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.