Methodological quality of systematic reviews on sepsis treatments: A cross-sectional study

作者：Ho, Leonard; Chen, Xi; Kwok, Yan Ling; Wu, Irene X. Y.; Mao, Chen; Chung, Vincent Chi Ho^*

来源：AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2024, 77: 21-28.

DOI：10.1016/j.ajem.2023.12.001

• Evidence-based practice
• Meta-analysis
• Sepsis
• Research design
• Systematic reviews

Objective: Systematic reviews (SRs) offer updated evidence to support decision-making on sepsis treatments. However, the rigour of SRs may vary, and methodological flaws may limit their validity in guiding clinical practice. This cross-sectional study appraised the methodological quality of SRs on sepsis treatments.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database for eligible SRs on randomised controlled trials on sepsis treatments with at least one meta-analysis published between 2018 and 2023. We extracted SRs' bibliographical characteristics with a pre-designed form and appraised their methodological quality using AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. We applied logistic regressions to explore associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings. Results: Among the 102 SRs, two (2.0%) had high overall quality, while respectively four (3.9%), seven (6.9%) and 89 (87.3%) were of moderate, low, and critically low quality. Performance in several critical methodological do-mains was poor, with only 32 (31.4%) considering the risk of bias in primary studies in result interpretation, 22 (21.6%) explaining excluded primary studies, and 16 (15.7%) applying comprehensive searching strategies. SRs published in higher impact factor journals (adjusted odds ratio: 1.19; 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 1.36) was associated with higher methodological quality.Conclusions: The methodological quality of recent SRs on sepsis treatments is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should address the above critical methodological aspects. More resources should also be allocated to support con-tinuous training in critical appraisal among healthcare professionals and other evidence users.

• 单位
  南方医科大学