ABSTRACT
Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses generally provide the best evidence for medical research. Authors are recommended to use flow diagrams to present the review process, allowing for better understanding among readers. However, no studies as of yet have assessed the quality of flow diagrams in systematic review/meta-analyses. Our study aims to evaluate the quality of systematic review/meta-analyses over a period of ten years, by assessing the quality of the flow diagrams, and the correlation to the methodological quality. Two hundred articles of "systematic review" and/or "meta-analysis" from January 2004 to August 2015 were randomly retrieved in Pubmed to be assessed for the flow diagram and methodological qualities. The flow diagrams were evaluated using a 16-grade scale corresponding to the four stages of PRISMA flow diagram. It composes four parts: Identification, Screening, Eligibility and Inclusion. Of the 200 articles screened, 154 articles were included and were assessed with AMSTAR checklist. Among them, 78 articles (50.6%) had the flow diagram. Over ten years, the proportion of papers with flow diagram available had been increasing significantly with regression coefficient beta = 5.649 (p = 0.002). However, the improvement in quality of the flow diagram increased slightly but not significantly (regression coefficient beta = 0.177, p = 0.133). Our analysis showed high variation in the proportion of articles that reported flow diagram components. The lowest proportions were 1% for reporting methods of duplicates removal in screening phase, followed by 6% for manual search in identification phase, 22% for number of studies for each specific/subgroup analysis, 27% for number of articles retrieved from each database, and 31% for number of studies included in qualitative analysis. The flow diagram quality was correlated with the methodological quality with the Pearson's coefficient r = 0.32 (p = 0.0039). Therefore, this review suggests that the reporting quality of flow diagram is less satisfactory, hence not maximizing the potential benefit of the flow diagrams. A guideline with standardized flow diagram is recommended to improve the quality of systematic reviews, and to enable better reader comprehension of the review process.
Subject(s)
Data Accuracy , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic , PubMedABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The genetic alterations of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) have been reported to change over the past few decades. We performed this systematic review to further examine the trends and modifications of patient demographic, clinicopathological features and molecular profiles of PTC over time. METHODS: A literature search was performed within six electronic databases to identify relevant articles. The inclusion criteria were published studies investigating BRAF mutations, RET/PTC rearrangements or RAS mutations in PTCs or classical PTCs. Two teams of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts of all articles. Full texts of potential articles were read and extracted data were listed and stratified into an excel file according to country, city, institution, and surgical time period. Student t test and Pearson Chi-square were used to analyze the trends of demographic and clinicopathological features of PTC patients and the prevalence of each genetic alteration in individual institutions. RESULTS: From 3139 articles, we included 16 articles for final analysis. Our results showed an increasing trend of BRAF and a decreasing trend of RET/PTC prevalence over time in PTCs and classical PTCs, accompanied by an older age of PTC patients, an increase in proportion of PTMC and less aggressive behaviours of tumours. CONCLUSIONS: The demographic and clinicopathological characteristics and molecular profile of PTCs have been changing over the past few decades. These modifications suggest changes in etiologies and risk factors of thyroid cancer that influence the tumorigenesis of PTCs.