Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 2009;8:678. doi:10.1510/icvts.2008.201350A
© 2009 European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
eComment: Improving reporting quality in meta-analyses – endorsement of the QUOROM statement
Karsten Knobloch and
Uzung Yoon
Hannover Medical School, Plastic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery Hannover, Germany
Does biventricular pacing provide a superior cardiac output compared to univentricular pacing wires after cardiac surgery?
We read with great interest the recent best evidence topic regarding the role of biventricular pacing in contrast to univentricular pacing after cardiac surgery [1]. The authors composed their manuscript according to a structured protocol published in ICVTS earlier [2].
Given the evolution of evidence-based medicine, certain reporting standards have been implemented in the meantime. Observational studies such as cohort or case-control studies should be composed according to the STROBE statement in order to improve the reporting quality. Randomized-controlled trials should adhere to the CONSORT statements in full papers as in conference abstracts [3]. As far as meta-analyses are concerned, the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analyses) statement has been stated in 1999 [4]. The QUOROM group recommended a statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes their preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with ‘trial flow’, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials.
Furthermore, the search strategy has to be considered in meta-analyses [5]. Comparing search strategies involving EMBASE in addition to Medline, Embase-unique trials yielded significantly smaller estimates but influenced the pooled estimate by an average of only 6%. Searching Medline but not Embase risks biasing a meta-analysis by finding studies that show larger estimates, but their prevalence seems low enough that the risk may be slight, provided the rest of the search is comprehensive.
 |
References
|
|---|
- Vaughan P, Bhatti F, Hunter S, Dunning J. Does biventricular pacing provide a superior cardiac output compared to univentricular pacing wires after cardiac surgery? Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 2009;8:673–679.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Dunning J, Prendergast B, Mackway-Jones K. Towards evidence-based medicine in cardiothoracic surgery: best BETS. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 2003;2:405–409.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, Schulz KF, CONSORT Group. CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet 2008;371:281–283.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials:the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896–1900.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Sampson M, Barrowman NJ, Moher D, Klassen TP, Pham B, Platt R, St John PD, Viola R, Raina P. Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:943–955.[CrossRef][Medline]
Related Article
-
Does biventricular pacing provide a superior cardiac output compared to univentricular pacing wires after cardiac surgery?
- Paul Vaughan, Farah Bhatti, Steven Hunter, and Joel Dunning
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery 2009 8: 673-678.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
Top
References