Available online 25 November 2022
Author links open overlay panelAbstractObjective: To assess the quality of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) regarding minimally invasive hysterectomies (MIHs).
Data Sources: We performed a cross sectional analysis on SRs addressing MIHs to assess completeness of harms reporting. Hysterectomies are common gynecological procedures and are associated with complications. Such adverse events can directly affect physician decision making and patient outcomes. Thus, it is important that SRs equally weigh the harms and benefits surrounding MIHs.
Methods of Study SelectionOn May 15th, 2022, we searched MEDLINE (Pubmed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for SRs with or without a meta-analysis on MIH for any indication. Eligible studies underwent full text screening, data extraction, harms reporting assessment, and AMSTAR-2 quality assessment in a masked, duplicate fashion. The corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated to indicate any overlap between SR dyads.
Tabulation, Integration, and Results: A total of 52 SRs met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. We found that over 44 (of 52; 84.6%) of included SRs reported more than 50% of the harms items. Completeness of harms reporting was significantly associated with harms specification as a primary outcome (P<0.05). The corrected covered area was 0.60%.
Conclusions: The harms reporting was more complete than hypothesized, but still had deficiencies throughout, such as inconsistent use of severity scales to classify harms. Even though MIH harms reporting in sample SRs was more complete than other fields of medicine, it was still suboptimal overall and requires refinement.
Key WordsAdverse events
complications
gynecology
harms
laparoscopy
surgery
© 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of AAGL.
留言 (0)