Search results for: Harkiran K. Sagoo

Authors: Seon-Young Lee, Harkiran Sagoo, Katherine Whitehurst, Georgina Wellstead, Alexander Fowler, Riaz Agha, Dennis Orgill

Abstract:

Introduction: Systematic reviews attempt to answer research questions by synthesising the data within primary papers. They are an increasingly important tool within evidence-based medicine, guiding clinical practice, future research and healthcare policy. We sought to determine the reporting quality of recent systematic reviews in plastic surgery. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in line with the Cochrane handbook, reported in line with the PRISMA statement and registered at the ResearchRegistry (UIN: reviewregistry18). MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched in 2013 and 2014 for systematic reviews by five major plastic surgery journals. Screening, identification and data extraction was performed independently by two teams. Results: From an initial set of 163 articles, 79 met the inclusion criteria. The median PRISMA score was 16 out of 27 items (59.3%; range 6-26, 95% CI 14-17). Compliance between individual PRISMA items showed high variability. It was poorest for items related to the use of review protocol (item 5; 5%) and presentation of data on risk of bias of each study (item 19; 18%), while being the highest for description of rationale (item 3; 99%) and sources of funding and other support (item 27; 95%), and for structured summary in the abstract (item 2; 95%). Conclusion: The reporting quality of systematic reviews in plastic surgery requires improvement. ‘Hard-wiring’ of compliance through journal submission systems, as well as improved education, awareness and a cohesive strategy among all stakeholders is called for.

Keywords: PRISMA, reporting quality, plastic surgery, systematic review, meta-analysis

Procedia PDF Downloads 294

Authors: Seon-Young Lee, Harkiran Sagoo, Reem Farwana, Katharine Whitehurst, Alex Fowler, Riaz Agha

Abstract:

Background/Aims: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are becoming increasingly important way of summarizing research evidence. Researches in ophthalmology may represent further challenges, due to their potential complexity in study design. The aim of our study was to determine the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement, by assessing the articles published between 2010 and 2015 from five major journals with the highest impact factor. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were used to search systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2015, in 5 major ophthalmology journals: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, Journal of the American Optometric Association. Screening, identification, and scoring of articles were performed independently by two teams, followed by statistical analysis including the median, range, and 95% CIs. Results: 115 articles were involved. The median PRISMA score was 15 of 27 items (56%), with a range of 5-26 (19-96%) and 95% CI 13.9-16.1 (51-60%). Compliance was highest in items related to the description of rationale (item 3,100%) and inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract (item 2, 90%), while poorest in indication of review protocol and registration (item 5, 9%), specification of risk of bias affecting the cumulative evidence (item 15, 24%) and description of clear objectives in introduction (item 4, 26%). Conclusion: The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in ophthalmology need significant improvement. While the use of PRISMA criteria as a guideline before journal submission is recommended, additional research identifying potential barriers may be required to improve the compliance to the PRISMA guidelines.

Keywords: systematic reviews, meta-analysis, research methodology, reporting quality, PRISMA, ophthalmology

Procedia PDF Downloads 263

Authors: Riaz A. Agha, Alexander J. Fowler, Seon-Young Lee, Buket Gundogan, Katharine Whitehurst, Harkiran K. Sagoo, Kyung Jin Lee Jeong, Douglas G. Altman, Dennis P. Orgill

Abstract:

Introduction: Case Series are an important and common study type. Currently, no guideline exists for reporting case series and there is evidence of key data being missed from such reports. We propose to develop a reporting guideline for case series using a methodologically robust technique. The first step in this process is a systematic review of literature relevant to the reporting deficiencies of case series. Methods: A systematic review of methodological and reporting quality in surgical case series was performed. The electronic search strategy was developed by an information specialist and included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Methods Register, Science Citation index and Conference Proceedings Citation index, from the start of indexing until 5th November 2014. Independent screening, eligibility assessments and data extraction was performed. Included articles were analyzed for five areas of deficiency: failure to use standardized definitions missing or selective data transparency or incomplete reporting whether alternate study designs were considered. Results: The database searching identified 2,205 records. Through the process of screening and eligibility assessments, 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Frequency of methodological and reporting issues identified was a failure to use standardized definitions (57%), missing or selective data (66%), transparency, or incomplete reporting (70%), whether alternate study designs were considered (11%) and other issues (52%). Conclusion: The methodological and reporting quality of surgical case series needs improvement. Our data shows that clear evidence-based guidelines for the conduct and reporting of a case series may be useful to those planning or conducting them.

Keywords: case series, reporting quality, surgery, systematic review

Procedia PDF Downloads 358