• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Raman G, Gaylor JM, Rao M, et al. Quality of Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Implantable Medical Devices [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Nov.

Cover of Quality of Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Implantable Medical Devices

Quality of Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Implantable Medical Devices [Internet].

Show details

Conclusions

We critically appraised 181 systematic reviews of implantable medical devices, most of which were published in recent years. After evaluating these reviews according to the 30 items from the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines, we observed that 20 items were commonly reported in more than 50 percent of the reviews. On the basis of input from the TEP, we developed eight items specific to evaluating implantable medical devices. These included device-specific items such as differences in characteristics across devices, differences in characteristics within a device, and the evolution of the device over time; as well as operator-specific information included training of providers, ramp-up in provider technique or learning curve, evaluation of team expertise, practitioner variability, and volume at each study site. Device-specific information was less commonly reported in reviews—differences in characteristics across devices (47 percent), differences in characteristics within a device (36 percent), and evolution of technology and its potential effects (21 percent). Operator-specific information were rarely reported in reviews—including training of providers (1 percent), ramp-up in provider technique or learning curve (7 percent), evaluation of team expertise (9 percent), practitioner variability (10 percent), and volume at each study site (8 percent).

Our evaluation of 181 systematic reviews on implantable medical devices reveals a lack of reporting of some important generic items applicable to any systematic review as well as device- and operator-specific information. We identified eight device- or operator-specific items that might be of value in reporting on systematic reviews of implantable devices and could be incorporated into reporting guidelines.

PubReader format: click here to try

Views

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...