Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias of Systematic Reviews of Prophylactic Mesh for Parastomal Hernia Prevention Using AMSTAR and ROBIS Tools.
Journal
World journal of surgery
ISSN: 1432-2323
Titre abrégé: World J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7704052
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
24
8
2019
medline:
28
7
2020
entrez:
24
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Systematic reviews play a crucial role in clinical decision making and resource allocation and are expected to be unbiased and consistent. The aim of this study is a review of systematic reviews on the use of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia (PH) formation using ROBIS and AMSTAR tools to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality. We included systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis of which the objective was to assess the use of a prophylactic mesh to prevent PH. A systematic search of the literature in five databases from inception until December 2017 was conducted. For each systematic review, methodologic quality and risk of bias were assessed using the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools, respectively. We estimated the inter-rater reliability for individual domains and for the overall methodological quality and risk of bias using Fleiss' k. We identified 14 systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria. Using the AMSTAR scale with a cutoff value, six reviews showed high methodologic quality and eight were of low quality. Using the ROBIS tool, the overall risk of bias was low in 50% of the reviews analyzed. In the remaining studies, the risk of bias was unclear. The global evidence in favor of the use of a prophylactic mesh for preventing PH is not uniform regarding quality and risk of bias. Surgeons cannot be equally confident in the results of all systematic reviews published on this topic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews play a crucial role in clinical decision making and resource allocation and are expected to be unbiased and consistent. The aim of this study is a review of systematic reviews on the use of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia (PH) formation using ROBIS and AMSTAR tools to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality.
METHODS
We included systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis of which the objective was to assess the use of a prophylactic mesh to prevent PH. A systematic search of the literature in five databases from inception until December 2017 was conducted. For each systematic review, methodologic quality and risk of bias were assessed using the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools, respectively. We estimated the inter-rater reliability for individual domains and for the overall methodological quality and risk of bias using Fleiss' k.
RESULTS
We identified 14 systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria. Using the AMSTAR scale with a cutoff value, six reviews showed high methodologic quality and eight were of low quality. Using the ROBIS tool, the overall risk of bias was low in 50% of the reviews analyzed. In the remaining studies, the risk of bias was unclear.
CONCLUSIONS
The global evidence in favor of the use of a prophylactic mesh for preventing PH is not uniform regarding quality and risk of bias. Surgeons cannot be equally confident in the results of all systematic reviews published on this topic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31440779
doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-05139-z
pii: 10.1007/s00268-019-05139-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3003-3012Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 May;68(5):574-83
pubmed: 25638457
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Nov;211(5):637-45
pubmed: 20829077
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;99:24-32
pubmed: 29526556
World J Surg. 2016 Oct;40(10):2528-36
pubmed: 27216806
Chirurg. 2017 Jan;88(Suppl 1):34-41
pubmed: 27460229
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 20;7:CD008905
pubmed: 30027652
Hernia. 2017 Apr;21(2):177-189
pubmed: 27995425
Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485-514
pubmed: 27620683
Syst Rev. 2017 May 15;6(1):97
pubmed: 28506257
Minerva Chir. 2012 Aug;67(4):289-96
pubmed: 23022753
Front Surg. 2015 Oct 22;2:53
pubmed: 26557646
Chirurg. 2016 Sep;87(9):751-761
pubmed: 27492376
Hernia. 2018 Feb;22(1):183-198
pubmed: 29134456
Colorectal Dis. 2012 Aug;14(8):931-6
pubmed: 21929523
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Nov;91:121-128
pubmed: 28694122
J Eval Clin Pract. 2017 Oct;23(5):915-922
pubmed: 28730671
World J Surg. 2005 Aug;29(8):1086-9
pubmed: 15981038
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:225-34
pubmed: 26092286
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017 Jan;99(1):2-11
pubmed: 27269439
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb 15;7:10
pubmed: 17302989
World J Surg. 2010 Nov;34(11):2723-9
pubmed: 20661562
Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 13;7(1):85
pubmed: 29898777
Colorectal Dis. 2013 May;15(5):e202-14
pubmed: 23374759
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 9;12(2):e0171548
pubmed: 28182642
Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 12;5:58
pubmed: 27072548
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:1694265
pubmed: 27818679
J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Jun;24(3):655-665
pubmed: 29194876
Colorectal Dis. 2014 May;16(5):390
pubmed: 24617947
Br J Surg. 2017 Feb;104(3):179-186
pubmed: 28004850
Tech Coloproctol. 2017 Jan;21(1):5-13
pubmed: 27942965
Lancet. 2017 Jul 22;390(10092):415-423
pubmed: 28215660
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Hernia. 2008 Dec;12(6):577-82
pubmed: 18523836
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Dec;92:79-88
pubmed: 28893571
Dis Colon Rectum. 2017 Jan;60(1):107-115
pubmed: 27926564
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1013-20
pubmed: 19230606
PLoS One. 2007 Dec 26;2(12):e1350
pubmed: 18159233