4.5 Article

Harms reporting by systematic reviews for functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a cross-sectional analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
卷 280, 期 6, 页码 2805-2819

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07803-y

关键词

Functional endoscopic sinus surgery; Adverse events; Complications; Rhinology; Harms; Systematic reviews

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensive analysis of systematic reviews (SRs) on functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) found that many SRs did not report the harms of the surgery completely, and these SRs had generally low quality. Future studies are recommended to follow guidelines such as STROCCS or the harms extension of PRISMA to improve harms reporting and evaluation.
Objectives To evaluate the completeness of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) pertaining to functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, we performed a comprehensive search using MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases for SRs regarding FESS on May 15th, 2022. Returns were screened and data were extracted in a masked, duplicate manner. Following established methodology, we extracted general study characteristics, harms items, and overall methodological quality for each SR in our sample. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated for SR dyads. For data analysis, using Stata 16.1 we performed a bivariate analysis between variables. Results Fifty-five SR's were included in our sample after excluding 375 studies that did not meet our inclusion criteria. Of the included SRs, 19 (19/55, 34.5%) did not report harms and 39 (39/55, 70.9%) reported half of the harms items or fewer. Our study found that 23 (23/55, 41.8%) of SRs demonstrated a method of harms data collection, 26 (26/55, 47.3%) of SRs had patients available for harms analysis in their results, and 25 (25/55, 45.5%) of SRs had a balanced discussion of harms and benefits of FESS. Fifty-two SRs were appraised as critically low quality using AMSTAR-2. A significant association was found between completeness of harms reporting (Mahady) and whether harms were listed as a primary outcome. No other associations were statistically significant. Two SR dyads had CCAs between 20% and 50% overlap and were compared for unique and shared harms. Conclusions Our study demonstrates gaps in harms reporting regarding FESS in SRs. We recommend future studies implement guidelines such as the STROCCS guidelines or the harms extension of the PRISMA guidelines to improve harms reporting. Accurate harms reporting may advance patient safety and promote a more objective risk-benefit analysis for physicians and patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据