Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pediatric surgery

Aims: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) studies may influence and direct surgical practice. Against this background we have analyzed the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the specialty field of pediatric surgery using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 11-item tool (AMSTAR). Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the three major journals in pediatric surgery were searched for SRs and MAs in pediatric surgery. Studies involving predominantly adult populations were excluded. Two reviewers independently scored included studies against AMSTAR criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus. A total rating of 4 or less was considered 'poor' methodological quality, 5-8 as 'fair to good' and 9 or greater as 'good'. Results: Original searching retrieved 1,281 articles. 126 articles were included for final analysis. Examining recent trends, 4 studies were published in 1995-2000 compared to 78 in 2011-2014. Using AMSTAR scoring criteria, 35 reviews (28%) were regarded as 'poor' in terms of methodological quality, 59 (47%) 'fair', and 32 (25%) 'good' quality. We observed no improvement in AMSTAR score before and after the development of the tool (mean score pre-2008 6.8, post-2008 5.9, p = 0.136). Conclusions: Despite an increase in the number of SRs / MAs published in pediatric surgery, a quarter of all studies were considered poor in terms of their quality and scientific validity. Journals must define and apply minimum criteria to ensure pediatric surgeons seeking to publish high quality SRs /MAs achieve these requirements. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.