Background

Abstracts of systematic reviews (SR) are frequently used to guide clinical decision-making. However, if the abstract is inadequately reported, key information may be missing and it may not accurately summarize the results of the review.

Objective

We aimed to investigate 1) if abstracts are fully reported; 2) if abstract reporting is associated with review/journal characteristics in physical therapy for low back pain (LBP); and 3) if these abstracts are consistent with the corresponding full texts.

Methods

We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database for SRs in physical therapy for LBP published between 2015 and 2017. Associations between abstract reporting quality and review/journal characteristics were explored with linear regression. Abstract reporting was assessed with the 12 item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist. Consistency of reporting between abstracts and the full text was evaluated by comparing responses to each item of the PRISMA-A using Kappa coefficients. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2).

Results

We included 66 SRs, 9 Cochrane and 57 non-Cochrane. Review methodological quality ranged from ‘high’ (8%) to ‘critically low’ (76%). The mean ± SD of the “total number of PRISMA-A fully reported items” (range 0–12 points for fully reported items) was 4.1 ± 1.9 points for non-Cochrane review abstracts and 9.9 ± 1.1 points for Cochrane abstracts. Factors associated with reporting quality of abstracts were: journal impact factor (ß 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.35), number of words in abstract (ß 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01) and review methodological quality (‘critically low’ with ß −3.06; 95% CI: −5.30, −0.82; with ‘high’ as reference variable). There was typically inconsistent reporting between abstract and full text, with most Kappa values lower than 0.60.

Conclusions

The abstracts of SRs in physical therapy for LBP were poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text. The reporting quality of abstracts was higher in journals with a higher impact factor, in abstracts with a greater number of words, and when the review was of higher methodological quality.

中文翻译：

---

与物理治疗中腰痛系统评价摘要报告质量相关的因素：一项方法学研究

背景

系统评价摘要 (SR) 经常用于指导临床决策。但是，如果摘要报告不充分，关键信息可能会丢失，并且可能无法准确总结审查结果。

客观的

我们的目的是调查 1) 是否完整报告了摘要；2) 如果摘要报告与腰痛 (LBP) 物理治疗中的评论/期刊特征相关；3) 这些摘要是否与相应的全文一致。

方法

我们在物理治疗证据数据库中搜索了 2015 年至 2017 年间发布的 LBP 物理治疗 SR。使用线性回归探索了摘要报告质量与评论/期刊特征之间的关联。摘要报告通过 12 项系统评价和摘要元分析首选报告项目 (PRISMA-A) 清单进行评估。通过使用 Kappa 系数比较对 PRISMA-A 的每个项目的响应，评估摘要和全文之间报告的一致性。系统评价的测量工具 (AMSTAR-2) 对评价的方法学质量进行了评估。

结果

我们纳入了 66 名 SR、9 名 Cochrane 和 57 名非 Cochrane。审查方法学质量从“高”（8%）到“极低”（76%）不等。“PRISMA-A 完整报告项目的总数”（完整报告项目的范围为 0-12 分）的平均值± SD， 非 Cochrane 综述摘要为 4.1  ± 1.9 分，Cochrane 摘要为 9.9  ±  1.1 分。与摘要报告质量相关的因素有：期刊影响因子 (ß 0.20；95% CI: 0.06, 0.35)、摘要字数 (ß 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01) 和评审方法学质量（'严重低' 与 ß -3.06；95% CI：-5.30，-0.82；以“高”作为参考变量）。摘要和全文之间的报告通常不一致，大多数 Kappa 值低于 0.60。

结论

LBP 物理治疗中 SR 的摘要报告很少且与全文不一致。影响因子较高的期刊、词数较多的摘要以及评价方法质量较高的期刊，其摘要报告质量较高。