Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Dermatology
Date Submitted: Oct 27, 2022
Date Accepted: Sep 15, 2023
The Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines Focused On the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
ABSTRACT
Background:
Clinical practice guidelines inform evidence-based decision making in the clinical setting; however, systematic reviews which inform these clinical practice guidelines may vary in terms of reporting and methodological quality, which affects confidence in summary effect estimates.
Objective:
Our objective was to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of the systematic reviews used in clinical practice guidelines for cutaneous melanoma and evaluate differences in these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional analysis by searching PubMed for cutaneous melanoma guidelines published between the dates of January 1, 2015 and May, 21 2021. Next, we extracted systematic reviews composing these guidelines and appraised their reporting and methodological rigor using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklists. Lastly, we compared these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. All screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion.
Results:
Of the systematic reviews appraised, the mean completion rate for the PRISMA checklist was 66.5% (SD=12.29) and 44.55% (SD=21.05) for AMSTAR-2. The majority of systematic reviews were of critically low methodological quality, with no systematic reviews being appraised as high quality. There was a statistically significant association between AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists. Cochrane systematic reviews had higher PRISMA mean completion rates and higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane systematic reviews.
Conclusions:
Systematic reviews supporting clinical practice guidelines focused on the management of cutaneous melanoma vary in reporting and methodological quality, with the majority of systematic reviews being of low quality. Increasing adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 checks will likely increase the quality of systematic reviews, thereby increasing the level of evidence supporting cutaneous melanoma clinical practice guidelines.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.