Adherence to PRISMA-A and reporting was suboptimal in meta-analysis abstracts on drug efficacy for tumors: a literature survey

Objectives

To assess the reporting of meta-analysis abstracts on drug efficacy for tumors in terms of adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) and identify the potential factors associated with adherence to PRISMA-A.

Study Design and Setting

A total of 3,211 eligible meta-analysis abstracts were assessed using a checklist adapted from the PRISMA-A statement. Adherence to PRISMA-A was analyzed by the total PRISMA-A score and adherence rate (AR). The independent samples t-test was performed to compare the difference of the total scores between two groups with different characteristics, and the analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis test was used among multiple groups. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to measure the correlation between the word count and the total PRISMA-A score.

Results

The mean total score was 8.11 (±1.76) and the AR was 57.94%. The items with lower AR were funding (AR = 0.93%), registration (AR = 3.86%), and risk of bias (AR = 7.85%). Meta-analyses published after the release of PRISMA-A showed better adherence to PRISMA-A. Compared to unstructured abstracts, structured abstracts had a higher AR for each item in PRISMA-A. There was a positive correlation between the word count of abstract and the total PRISMA-A score (r = 0.358, P < .001).

Conclusion

Adherence to PRISMA-A was suboptimal in meta-analysis abstracts on drug efficacy for tumors, despite the improvement after the release of PRISMA-A. Various measures should be implemented to improve compliance with PRISMA-A and enhance the reporting of meta-analysis abstracts, including journal endorsement of PRISMA-A, requirement of stricter adherence to PRISMA-A, relaxation of abstract word limits, etc.

Plain Language Summary

Meta-analysis is the statistical method used to compare and synthesize the results of studies on the same result research problem. It is integral in guiding evidence-based decision making in clinical practice. However, crucial information is frequently inadequately documented in meta-analysis abstracts, thereby reducing their significance for readers. And there has been a lack of published research evaluating the reporting of meta-analysis abstracts in the field of drug efficacy for tumors. The objectives of our study were (1) to assess the reporting of meta-analysis abstracts on drug efficacy for tumors in terms of adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A); and (2) to identify factors that might influence adherence to PRISMA-A. Our study reveals that meta-analyses published after the release of PRISMA-A showed better adherence to PRISMA-A, although there is still large room for improvement. Compared to unstructured abstracts, structured abstracts received the higher adherence rate (AR) for each item in PRISMA-A. There was a positive correlation between the word counts of abstract and the total PRISMA-A scores. Our study suggests that more efforts are still needed to improve the adherence to PRISMA-A in meta-analysis abstracts on drug efficacy for tumors. The journal editors should endorse PRISMA-A to authors, appropriately relax the word limit for abstracts, and provide authors with the writing template for structured abstracts.