Laparoscopic versus open surgery: a systematic review evaluating Cochrane systematic reviews.
Epidemiologic study characteristics
Laparoscopy
Operative
Peer-review
Research
Research design
Review
Surgical procedures
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
received:
24
07
2017
accepted:
12
10
2018
pubmed:
26
10
2018
medline:
17
4
2020
entrez:
26
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Laparoscopic surgical procedures (LSP) have grown in popularity due to their purported benefits of improved effectiveness and efficiency. This study summarizes the Cochrane systematic reviews' (CSRs') evidence comparing the use of LSP versus open procedures used for surgical patient management and comparing the CSRs' quality and consistency of LSP evidence reported across time and different surgical specialties. The Cochrane Database was searched to identify CSRs comparing LSP versus open procedures; 36 CSRs and 15 CSR protocols were found as of February 16, 2016. Each CSR's clinical outcomes and major conclusions were evaluated; CSR's quality and completeness were assessed using PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria. Overall, CSRs' reporting variations across specialties and trends over time were summarized. A weighted analysis across all 36 CSRs found improved outcomes with LSP (odds ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.88, 0.92). Substantial CSR variation was found in the patient inclusion/exclusion criteria and clinical endpoints used. Individually, most CSR analyses showed no significant difference (65.4%) between LSP versus open procedures; 25.8% showed a LSP benefit versus 8.9% an open benefit. As a major conclusion, a positive LSP impact was documented by 8/36 (22.2%) CSRs; but only half of these CSRs decisively concluded that there was a LSP advantage. Undeclared conflicts of interest were identified in 9/36 CSRs (25.0%), raising the potential for a reporting bias. Both CSR variabilities (i.e., missing population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design statements) and PRISMA-related deficiencies were documented. Overall, CSR evidence supports a LSP advantage; however, clinical decisions must be driven by CSR procedure-specific evidence. Variations and inconsistencies in CSR design and reporting identified future opportunities to improve CSR quality by increasing the methodological transparency, standardizing CSR reporting, and documenting comprehensively any non-financial conflicts of interest (i.e., ongoing research and historical publications) for all CSR team members.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic surgical procedures (LSP) have grown in popularity due to their purported benefits of improved effectiveness and efficiency. This study summarizes the Cochrane systematic reviews' (CSRs') evidence comparing the use of LSP versus open procedures used for surgical patient management and comparing the CSRs' quality and consistency of LSP evidence reported across time and different surgical specialties.
METHODS
The Cochrane Database was searched to identify CSRs comparing LSP versus open procedures; 36 CSRs and 15 CSR protocols were found as of February 16, 2016. Each CSR's clinical outcomes and major conclusions were evaluated; CSR's quality and completeness were assessed using PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria. Overall, CSRs' reporting variations across specialties and trends over time were summarized.
RESULTS
A weighted analysis across all 36 CSRs found improved outcomes with LSP (odds ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.88, 0.92). Substantial CSR variation was found in the patient inclusion/exclusion criteria and clinical endpoints used. Individually, most CSR analyses showed no significant difference (65.4%) between LSP versus open procedures; 25.8% showed a LSP benefit versus 8.9% an open benefit. As a major conclusion, a positive LSP impact was documented by 8/36 (22.2%) CSRs; but only half of these CSRs decisively concluded that there was a LSP advantage. Undeclared conflicts of interest were identified in 9/36 CSRs (25.0%), raising the potential for a reporting bias. Both CSR variabilities (i.e., missing population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design statements) and PRISMA-related deficiencies were documented.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, CSR evidence supports a LSP advantage; however, clinical decisions must be driven by CSR procedure-specific evidence. Variations and inconsistencies in CSR design and reporting identified future opportunities to improve CSR quality by increasing the methodological transparency, standardizing CSR reporting, and documenting comprehensively any non-financial conflicts of interest (i.e., ongoing research and historical publications) for all CSR team members.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30357523
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6532-2
pii: 10.1007/s00464-018-6532-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1693-1709Références
Palmer R (1962) Essais de sterilisation tubaire celioscopique par electrocoagulation isthmique. Bull Fed Soc Gynecol Obstet Lang Fr 14:298
Gomel V (1974) Laparoscopy. Can Med Assoc J 111(2):167–169
pubmed: 4276392
pmcid: 1947615
Semm K (1983) Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy 15(2):59–64
doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1021466
pubmed: 6221925
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
pubmed: 19621070
pmcid: 2707010
Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J et al (2007) External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS ONE 2(12):e1350
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001350
pubmed: 2131785
pmcid: 2131785
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA et al (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:10
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10
pubmed: 17302989
pmcid: 1810543
The Cochrane Collaboration. About us. http://www.cochrane.org/about-us . Accessed 7 June 2015
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. In Higgins JPT GS, ed., 2011
Churchill RHJ, Chandler J, Tovey D, Lasserson T (2013) Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews Version 2
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S et al (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 354(9193):1896–1900
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5
pubmed: 10584742
Cochrane Editorial Unit. MECIR 19 August 2013. http://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/mecir . Accessed 30 Apr 2015
Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Linked Data Project. http://linkeddata.cochrane.org/cochrane-linked-data-new-opportunities . Accessed 12 June 2016
Shea B, Moher D, Graham I et al (2002) A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof 25(1):116–129
doi: 10.1177/0163278702025001008
pubmed: 11868441
Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Incontinence Group (2015) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clabout/articles/INCONT/frame.html . Accessed 5 June 2015