TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing the Reporting and Frequency of Harms in Systematic Reviews Focused on Minimally Invasive Hysterectomies
T2 - A Cross-sectional Analysis
AU - Autaubo, Josh
AU - Fitts, Andee Beth
AU - Wise, Audrey
AU - Flores, Holly
AU - Kee, Micah
AU - Garrett, Morgan
AU - Rucker, Brayden
AU - Cox, Grant
AU - Vassar, Matt
N1 - Funding Information:
No financial or other sources of support were provided during the development of this manuscript. Dr. Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Office of Research Integrity, and Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences—all outside of the present work. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 AAGL
PY - 2023/2
Y1 - 2023/2
N2 - Objective: To assess the quality of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) regarding minimally invasive hysterectomies (MIHs). Data Sources: We performed a cross-sectional analysis on SRs addressing MIHs to assess completeness of harms reporting. Hysterectomies are common gynecologic procedures and are associated with complications. Such adverse events can directly affect physician decision making and patient outcomes. Thus, it is important that SRs equally weigh the harms and benefits surrounding MIHs. Methods of Study Selection: On May 15, 2022, we searched MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for SRs with or without a meta-analysis on MIH for any indication. Eligible studies underwent full-text screening, data extraction, harms reporting assessment, and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 quality assessment in a masked, duplicate fashion. The corrected covered area was calculated to indicate any overlap between SR dyads. Tabulation, Integration, and Results: A total of 52 SRs met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. We found that >44 of included SRs (of 52; 84.6%) reported >50% of the harms items. Completeness of harms reporting was significantly associated with harms specification as a primary outcome (p <.05). The corrected covered area was 0.60%. Conclusion: The harms reporting was more complete than hypothesized, but still had deficiencies throughout, such as inconsistent use of severity scales to classify harms. Even though MIH harms reporting in sample SRs was more complete than other fields of medicine, it was still suboptimal overall and requires refinement.
AB - Objective: To assess the quality of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) regarding minimally invasive hysterectomies (MIHs). Data Sources: We performed a cross-sectional analysis on SRs addressing MIHs to assess completeness of harms reporting. Hysterectomies are common gynecologic procedures and are associated with complications. Such adverse events can directly affect physician decision making and patient outcomes. Thus, it is important that SRs equally weigh the harms and benefits surrounding MIHs. Methods of Study Selection: On May 15, 2022, we searched MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for SRs with or without a meta-analysis on MIH for any indication. Eligible studies underwent full-text screening, data extraction, harms reporting assessment, and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 quality assessment in a masked, duplicate fashion. The corrected covered area was calculated to indicate any overlap between SR dyads. Tabulation, Integration, and Results: A total of 52 SRs met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. We found that >44 of included SRs (of 52; 84.6%) reported >50% of the harms items. Completeness of harms reporting was significantly associated with harms specification as a primary outcome (p <.05). The corrected covered area was 0.60%. Conclusion: The harms reporting was more complete than hypothesized, but still had deficiencies throughout, such as inconsistent use of severity scales to classify harms. Even though MIH harms reporting in sample SRs was more complete than other fields of medicine, it was still suboptimal overall and requires refinement.
KW - Adverse events
KW - Complications
KW - Gynecology
KW - Harms
KW - Laparoscopy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85144470315&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.11.012
DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.11.012
M3 - Review article
C2 - 36442755
AN - SCOPUS:85144470315
SN - 1553-4650
VL - 30
SP - 100
EP - 107
JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
IS - 2
ER -