Photo Credit: Jian Fan

The following is a summary of “Methodological quality of systematic reviews on sepsis treatments: A cross-sectional study,” published in the March 2024 issue of Emergency Medicine by Ho, et al.

For a cross-sectional study, researchers sought to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) focusing on sepsis treatments, recognizing their crucial role in informing clinical decisions.

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database was conducted to identify eligible SRs on randomized controlled trials related to sepsis treatments, with at least one meta-analysis published between 2018 and 2023. Using a pre-designed form, bibliographical characteristics of the SRs were extracted, and their methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). Logistic regressions explored potential associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings.

Among the 102 SRs included in the analysis, only two (2.0%) were rated as having high overall quality. Conversely, four (3.9%), seven (6.9%), and 89 (87.3%) were classified as having moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. Several critical methodological domains were found to be lacking, with only 32 (31.4%) considering the risk of bias in primary studies during result interpretation, 22 (21.6%) explaining excluded primary studies, and 16 (15.7%) employing comprehensive search strategies. Notably, SRs published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher methodological quality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.36).

The methodological quality of recent SRs on sepsis treatments falls short of satisfactory standards. Future reviewers should prioritize addressing critical methodological aspects highlighted in the study. Additionally, there was a pressing need for increased resources to support ongoing training in critical appraisal among healthcare professionals and other stakeholders involved in evidence utilization.

Reference: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0735675723006769