Methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the association between sleep duration and hypertension

Abstract

Abstract Objective It is crucial to conduct systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) to make causal references, in order to inform the clinical guidelines and decision-making. The high reporting quality of reviews through compliance with the guidelines Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) could promote the consistency and reproducibility across the published articles. The purpose of this meta-epidemiological study is to evaluate the reporting methodological quality of SRs on the association between sleep duration and hypertension. Methods An electronic search in an online database was performed to retrieve systematic reviews and meta-analyses published up to 31st December 2022. Data screening and extraction were conducted by two investigators. The reporting quality of each included article was measured with reference to the 27-item 2020 PRISMA checklist, and methodological quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR-2. PRISMA evaluation was determined by total scores of individual SR and items scores and AMSTAR-2 assessment was also conducted using four categories. Results Of 2269 articles captured in the initial search, 15 SRs were included in the final analyses. All SRs had more than one incomplete PRISMA item. The mean of total scores was 20.5 (range 14–25), and the results of the AMSTAR-2 assessment were critically low to low. The reporting quality of “rationale,” “objectives,” “selection process,” “study selection,” “discussion,” and ‘support’ was fully reported. SRs that reported registration information and protocol had a higher PRISMA score than articles that reported certain deficiencies. From the results of the AMSTAR-2 assessment, the methodological quality of these SRs and MAs was critically low to low. None of the included literature provided a list of excluded articles, and the report of the search strategy was incomplete; half of the SRs did not use appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias in each included study. Conclusions Both the reporting and methodological quality of overall studies are less than ideal, with several key items being consistently under-reported. The quality measured by AMSTAR-2 is mainly consistent with the quality of reporting. Authors, reviewers, and journal editors should raise awareness and move forward to encourage completeness of SR reporting based on the results, which can aid in enhancing the quality of evidence. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42023459901.

Keywords

• Systematic review
• Meta-analysis
• Reporting quality
• PRISMA
• AMSTAR-2