In gratitude of the loyal support of our members, the CNS is offering complimentary 2021 Annual Meeting registration to all members! Learn more.

  • Methodology and Reporting of Meta-analyses in the Neurosurgical Literature

    Final Number:

    Paul Klimo MD; Clinton Thompson; Brian T. Ragel MD

    Study Design:

    Subject Category:

    Meeting: Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2012 Annual Meeting

    Introduction: A 'meta-analysis' is a multi-step statistical analysis of the results from independent studies, the goal to produce a single estimate of a treatment effect. Meta-analyses are becoming increasingly popular in the neurosurgical literature. AMSTAR is an 11 point scale used to assess methodologic quality. PRISMA is a 27-item checklist used to ensure the transparent and complete reporting of meta-analyses.

    Methods: All meta-analyses ever published in the two main neurosurgical journals were retrieved. We first determined whether the term 'meta-anlaysis' was appropriate based on our simple definition, as described above. We then applied the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) to each metanalysis. Each metanalysis was then assigned a 'score' for each checklist, which was the number of components present within each paper for each checklist, expressed as a percentage.

    Results: Sixty-three meta-analysis were reviewed, 39 from the Journal of Neurosurgery and 24 from Neurosurgery, from 1990 to 2011. Nineteen (30%) of the articles should NOT be considered a meta-analysis. The average AMSTAR score was 31.2% (range, 0-82%); the average PRISMA score was 52.6% (range, 3.7-92.6%). The AMSTAR and PRISMA scores showed improvement with time (5-year intervals from 1990 to 2010+), if one of the authors was a person who potentially had meta-analysis expertise (ex.biostatistician or epidemiologist), if it met our definition of a meta-analysis and if the authors solely focussed on conducting a meta-analsysis (as opposed to first reviewing their own institution's data and then secondarily performing a meta-analysis).

    Conclusions: The overall methodology and reporting of meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature is poor but is improving. One-third of papers inappropriately use the term "meta-analysis". Academic neurosurgery needs to hold these papers to high standards, which can be done by applying these checklists.

    Patient Care: By advocating better quality meta-analyses which is a cornerstone of Evidence-Based Medicine.

    Learning Objectives: By the conclusion of this session, participants should be able to: 1) Define a "meta-analysis" 2) Discuss, in small groups, the key methodologic and reporting components of a meta-analysis 3) Identify effective methods to improve methodology and reporting of meta-anslyses.


We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy