Authors: Turner J et al.
Anaesthesiology Journal • Cureus • DOI: 10.7759/cureus.90058
Summary
This study evaluated the methodological quality of anaesthesiology meta-analyses published between 2015 and 2022 across six major journals. Using the Revised-AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR) scoring system with detailed binary sub-criterion assessment, the authors reviewed 130 full-text meta-analyses drawn from a pool of 455 published during the study period.
Despite a steady increase in the number of meta-analyses published each year, overall methodological quality remained flat, showing no significant improvement after 2014. No meaningful differences were observed in quality scores across journals. Strengths included consistent reporting of duplicate data extraction and adequate descriptions of included studies. However, multiple persistent weaknesses were noted: inadequate assessment of publication bias, insufficient use of study quality to support conclusions, poor documentation of excluded studies, and ongoing deficits in research planning and protocol transparency.
The findings show that while output has increased, rigor has not. The study underscores a need for renewed editorial oversight, clearer methodological expectations, and enhanced author training to improve transparency, bias assessment, and overall reliability of anaesthesiology meta-analyses.
What You Should Know
• Meta-analyses in anaesthesiology have increased in number but not in quality.
• No improvement in methodological rigor was observed from 2015–2022.
• Common weaknesses include lack of publication bias testing and failure to use study quality when forming conclusions.
• Excluded studies are often not transparently reported.
• Editors and authors need stronger emphasis on methodological standards to ensure reliability of published evidence.
Thank you for allowing us to use this article from Cureus.