Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 4, 2026
Conducting Respiratory Oscillometry in an Outpatient Setting
Published on: April 8, 2022
Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA
Jeroen P M Peters1, Lotty Hooft2, Wilko Grolman1
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Background:
Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide the highest possible level of evidence. However, poor conduct or reporting of SRs and MAs may reduce their utility. The PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) was developed to help authors report their SRs and MAs adequately.
Objectives:
Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs and their abstracts in otorhinolaryngologic literature using the PRISMA and PRISMA for Abstracts checklists, respectively, (2) compare the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs published in Ear Nose Throat (ENT) journals to the quality of SRs and MAs published in the 'gold standard' Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and (3) formulate recommendations to improve reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals.
Methods:
On September 3, 2014, we searched the Pubmed database using a combination of filters to retrieve SRs and MAs on otorhinolaryngologic topics published in 2012 and 2013 in the top 5 ENT journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2013) or CDSR and relevant articles were selected. We assessed how many, and which, PRISMA (for Abstracts) items were reported adequately per journal type.
Results:
We identified large differences in the reporting of individual items between the two journal types with room for improvement. In general, SRs and MAs published in ENT journals (n = 31) reported a median of 54.4% of the PRISMA items adequately, whereas the 49 articles published in the CDSR reported a median of 100.0 adequately (difference statistically significant, p < 0.001). For abstracts, medians of 41.7% for ENT journals and 75.0% for the CDSR were found (p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
The reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals leaves room for improvement and would benefit if the PRISMA Statement were endorsed by these journals.
Related Concept Videos
01:26Types of Reports III: Telephone and Verbal Reports
Here's an overview of each type:
Telephone Orders
01:26Methods of Documentation II: POMR
01:20Introduction to Documentation and Reporting
Nursing documentation records essential information and details regarding a patient's care and treatment in written or electronic form. It is a critical aspect of nursing practice that involves documenting assessments, interventions, outcomes, and other relevant details about a patient's health status.
Documentation maps the patient's health journey by creating a comprehensive...
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
01:30Assessment of Airway, Skin Color, and Use of Accessory Muscles
Introduction
The initial evaluation of a patient's respiratory system...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...