Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review A review

Main Article Content

Amanda Yang Shen
Robert S Ware
Tom J O'Donohoe
Jason Wasiak


hand, wrist, abstracts, checklist


Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews are published on an annual basis. Although perusal of the full text of articles is preferable, abstracts are sometimes relied upon to guide clinical decisions. Despite this, the abstracts of systematic reviews have historically been poorly reported. We evaluated the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts within hand and wrist pathology literature.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology using the 12-item PRISMA-A checklist to assess abstract reporting quality.
Results: A total of 114 abstracts were included. Most related to fracture (38%) or arthritis (17%) management. Forty-seven systematic reviews (41%) included meta-analysis. Mean PRISMA-A score was 3.6/12 with Cochrane reviews having the highest mean score and hand-specific journals having the lowest. Abstracts longer than 300 words (mean difference [MD]: 1.43, 95% CI [0.74, 2.13]; p <0.001) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MD: 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.22]; p = 0.034) were associated with higher scores. Unstructured abstracts were associated with lower scores (MD: –0.65, 95% CI [–1.28, –0.02]; p = 0.044). A limitation of this study is the possible exclusion of relevant studies that were not published in the English language.
Conclusion: Abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to hand and wrist pathology have been suboptimally reported as assessed by the PRISMA-A checklist. Improvements in reporting quality could be achieved by endorsement of PRISMA-A guidelines by authors and journals, and reducing constraints on abstract length.

Abstract 154 | PDF Downloads 83 HTML Downloads 104


1. PubMed. Fact sheets [web page]. [Cited 21 June 2018] Bethesda, MD: US National Library of Medicine. Available from:
2. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326. PMid:20877712 PMCid:PMC2943439
3. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, Lasserson T, ToveyD for the PRISMA for Abstracts Group. PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001419. PMid:23585737 PMCid:PMC3621753
4. Islamaj Dogan R, Murray G, Neveol A, Lu Z. Understanding PubMed® user search behavior through log analysis. Database. 2009;bap018. PMid:20157491 PMCid:PMC2797455
5. Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e4178. PMid:22730543 PMCid:PMC3382226
6. Sollaci LB, Pereira MG. The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92:364–67.
7. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereauz PJ,Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. PMid:19621070 PMCid:PMC2707010
8. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Hopewell S, Altman DG. Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews. JAMA. 2011;306:1981–82. PMid:22068989
9. Hopewell S, Boutron I, Altman D, Ravaud P. Deficiencies in the publication and reporting of the results of systematic reviews presented at scientific medical conferences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1488–95. PMid:25890806
10. Kiriakou J, Pandis N, Madianos P, Polychronopoulou A. Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals. J Dent. 2013;41:1181–87. PMid:24075952
11. Tsou A, Treadwell J. Quality and clarity in systematic review abstracts: an empirical study. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(4):447–58. PMid:27764903
12. Bigna J, Um L, Nansseu J. A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2016;5(174):1–9. PMid:27737710 PMCid:PMC5064935
13. Koller C, Khan S, Holmes J, Herrmann D, Vassar M. Quality of systematic review and meta-analysis abstracts in oncology journals. Cancer Treat Commun. 2016;9:70–74.
14. Rice D, Kloda L, Shrier I, Thombs B. Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012867. PMid:27864250 PMCid:PMC5128996
15. Wasiak J, Shen A, Ware R, O’Donohue T, Faggion C Jr. Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. J Hand Surg Eur. 2017;42(8):852–56. PMid:28610464
16. Page M, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(263):1–14. PMid:29258593 PMCid:PMC5738221
17. Gómez-García F, Ruano J, Aguilar-Luque M, Alcalde-Mellado P, Gay-Mimbrera J, Hernández-Romero J, Sanz-Cabanillas JL, Maestre-Lopez B, Gonzalez-Padilla M, Carmona-Fernandez PJ, Garcia-Nieto AV, Isla-Tejea B. Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(180):1–11. PMid:29284417 PMCid:PMC5747101