Original researchThe reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery needs improvement: A systematic review

•The PRISMA guidelines (2009) provide authors with a 27-item checklist of items that need to be reported when publishing a systematic review.•We assessed the quality of reporting of systematic reviews relating to vascular surgery, before and after the publication of PRISMA.•We assessed the quality of reporting of systematic reviews relating to vascular surgery, before and after the publication of PRISMA.•More effort is required on the part of authors and journal editors/reviewers to insist that the PRISMA guidance is followed.

Introduction: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important in shaping clinical practice, but the underlying quality of these studies is critical. The PRISMA guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews, published in 2009, aimed to improve the quality of reporting of these studies. We looked at whether the reporting of systematic reviews relevant to vascular surgery had improved since the introduction of these guidelines. Methods: All systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the top five general and top five vascular surgery journals in the years 2008 (pre-PRIMSA) and 2012 (post-PRISMA) were included. We examined the proportion of concordance of each individual paper with the 27 PRISMA statements. Results: A total of 74 studies were found (n = 37 in 2008, n = 37 in 2012), most of which were found in the specific vascular surgery journals. The average proportion of concordance of systematic reviews to the PRISMA guidance increased between 2008 and 2012 (from 65% to 73%, p < 0.01), indicating some improvement in reporting quality.Discussion: Since the publication of the PRISMA guidance, there has been a marginal improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of vascular surgery. However, given the importance of these studies, this needs to be improved, especially as poor reporting may reflect poor methodology in conduct. Journals' instructions to authors should insist on submissions following the published guidance, and this intervention would likely improve both the methodology and quality of reporting of published systematic reviews.