A cross-sectional analysis of harms reporting in systematic reviews evaluating laminectomy.
Adverse events
Cross-sectional analysis
Harms reporting
Laminectomy
Meta-analysis
Systematic review
Journal
North American Spine Society journal
ISSN: 2666-5484
Titre abrégé: N Am Spine Soc J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918335076906676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
07
11
2022
revised:
28
12
2022
accepted:
29
12
2022
entrez:
24
1
2023
pubmed:
25
1
2023
medline:
25
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Laminectomy is a common vertebral decompression procedure that has multiple potential adverse events which are not always reported in SRs. To evaluate the completeness of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) on laminectomy. Cross-sectional analysis. Eligible studies were SRs that evaluated laminectomy for any indication. MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched in May 2022 to locate studies for inclusion. Screening and data extraction on harms reporting and study characteristics were performed in duplicate. AMSTAR-2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included SRs. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated for SR pairs. We included 26 SRs comprising 426 primary studies. Most SRs studied laminectomy for spinal stenosis, declared harms as a secondary outcome, and lacked or did not mention funding. Two SRs completely omitted harms, 9 had between 0% and 50.0% completion of harms items, and 15 had more than 50.1% completion. AMSTAR-2 graded 25 SRs (25/26, 96.2%) as 'critically low' and 1 SR (1/26, 3.8%) as 'low'. We found a statistically significant association between completeness of harms reporting and outcome specification. No other associations were statistically significant. Three SR pairs had CCAs >50% and were compared for unique and shared harms. The completeness of harms reporting in SRs was inadequate. Because SRs often serve as tools for constructing clinical practice guidelines and clinical decision making, improvements must be made to enhance and refine harms reporting.
Sections du résumé
Background Context
UNASSIGNED
Laminectomy is a common vertebral decompression procedure that has multiple potential adverse events which are not always reported in SRs.
Purpose
UNASSIGNED
To evaluate the completeness of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) on laminectomy.
Study Design
UNASSIGNED
Cross-sectional analysis.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Eligible studies were SRs that evaluated laminectomy for any indication. MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched in May 2022 to locate studies for inclusion. Screening and data extraction on harms reporting and study characteristics were performed in duplicate. AMSTAR-2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included SRs. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated for SR pairs.
Results
UNASSIGNED
We included 26 SRs comprising 426 primary studies. Most SRs studied laminectomy for spinal stenosis, declared harms as a secondary outcome, and lacked or did not mention funding. Two SRs completely omitted harms, 9 had between 0% and 50.0% completion of harms items, and 15 had more than 50.1% completion. AMSTAR-2 graded 25 SRs (25/26, 96.2%) as 'critically low' and 1 SR (1/26, 3.8%) as 'low'. We found a statistically significant association between completeness of harms reporting and outcome specification. No other associations were statistically significant. Three SR pairs had CCAs >50% and were compared for unique and shared harms.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The completeness of harms reporting in SRs was inadequate. Because SRs often serve as tools for constructing clinical practice guidelines and clinical decision making, improvements must be made to enhance and refine harms reporting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36691579
doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100198
pii: S2666-5484(22)00101-9
pmc: PMC9860335
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
100198Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
No financial or other sources of support were provided during the development of this manuscript. Dr. Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Office of Research Integrity, Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology, and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences — all outside of the present work. All other authors have nothing to report.
Références
Ann Plast Surg. 2018 Aug;81(2):215-219
pubmed: 29794510
Surg Neurol Int. 2015 May 07;6(Suppl 4):S190-3
pubmed: 26005583
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
J Arthroplasty. 2022 Dec;37(12):2466-2472.e2
pubmed: 35709908
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Mar;143:186-196
pubmed: 34742788
Spinal Cord. 2013 Jun;51(6):472-6
pubmed: 23318555
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Feb;68(2):144-53
pubmed: 25124168
Res Synth Methods. 2020 Jan;11(1):134-145
pubmed: 31823513
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Jan;475(1):253-260
pubmed: 27511203
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
BMJ. 2016 Feb 01;352:i157
pubmed: 26830668
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Mar;143:212-223
pubmed: 34742789
J Neurosurg Spine. 2021 Aug 20;35(6):698-703
pubmed: 34416721
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Mar;143:224-241
pubmed: 34742790
World Neurosurg. 2022 Jul;163:e199-e206
pubmed: 35342029
BMJ. 2014 Jan 08;348:f7668
pubmed: 24401468
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Sep 5;100(17):1461-1472
pubmed: 30180054
J Med Libr Assoc. 2012 Apr;100(2):130-4
pubmed: 22514510
World Neurosurg. 2019 Nov;131:e468-e473
pubmed: 31404695