Methodological Quality of Heart Failure Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Era of AMSTAR-2 (a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews): A Pre-registered Repeat Cross-Sectional Survey.
- 1General Practice, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, GBR.
- 2Acute Medicine, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, GBR.
Abstract
Background Systematic reviews and meta-analyses guide heart failure (HF) practice, yet their methodological quality has been questioned. An AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) appraisal of HF reviews in 11 high-impact journals during 2009-2019 rated 79 of 81 as critically low confidence. Whether quality has changed in the era of routine protocol registration and PRISMA 2020 is unknown. Methods In a pre-registered repeat cross-sectional survey, we replicated that sampling frame for 2021-2025: HF systematic reviews with a meta-analysis of an intervention, in the same 11 journals. Two reviewers independently applied all 16 AMSTAR-2 items to each review; disagreements were resolved by consensus. Item-level compliance (the proportion rated Yes or Partial Yes) and overall confidence were compared with the 2009-2019 figures. Results Of 751 records screened, 26 reviews were included (median of eight primary studies). Overall confidence was critically low in 16, low in seven, and moderate in three; none was high. A total of 10 of 26 (38%) reached low confidence or better, versus two of 81 (2%) in 2009-2019. Compliance was higher for an a priori protocol (5% to 88%), the provision of an excluded-studies list (5% to 46%), and the specification of population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) (65% to 100%). Conversely, accounting for the risk of bias when interpreting results was lower (88% to 35%). Reporting the funding of individual included studies remained rare in both eras (4%). Inter-rater agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.47). Conclusions The AMSTAR-2 compliance of high-impact HF systematic reviews was higher in 2021-2025 than in 2009-2019, most markedly for protocol reporting, though most reviews remained critically low. Reviews were less likely to carry risk-of-bias findings into their interpretation; one interpretation is that registration has become routine while substantive appraisal has not.
Related
- Repeatability of upper limb volume measurements based on the Kuhnke measurement protocol and frustum volume calculation in women after unilateral mastectomy: a cross-sectional methodological study
- Factors influencing registered nurses’ attitudes toward and literacy in artificial intelligence: a cross-sectional systematic review
- The ability of the commercial inertial measurement unit-based gait system in determining Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies
- A Scoping Review of Cost Analyses in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Economic Trends, Cost Drivers, and Methodological Gaps.
- Assessing the robustness of meta-analyses to variability in the frequency and timing of postoperative delirium assessment – a novel methodological approach
BibTeX
@article{shakib2026methodological,
title = {{Methodological Quality of Heart Failure Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Era of AMSTAR-2 (a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews): A Pre-registered Repeat Cross-Sectional Survey.}},
author = {Md Shadman Shakib and Raidah Sadia},
journal = {Cureus},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.7759/cureus.117099},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42953577},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Methodological Quality of Heart Failure Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Era of AMSTAR-2 (a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews): A Pre-registered Repeat Cross-Sectional Survey.
AU - Md Shadman Shakib
AU - Raidah Sadia
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/28
JO - Cureus
DO - 10.7759/cureus.117099
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42953577
AB - Background Systematic reviews and meta-analyses guide heart failure (HF) practice, yet their methodological quality has been questioned. An AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) appraisal of HF reviews in 11 high-impact journals during 2009-2019 rated 79 of 81 as critically low confidence. Whether quality has changed in the era of routine protocol registration and PRISMA 2020 is unknown. Methods In a pre-registered repeat cross-sectional survey, we replicated that sampling frame for 2021-2025: HF systematic reviews with a meta-analysis of an intervention, in the same 11 journals. Two reviewers independently applied all 16 AMSTAR-2 items to each review; disagreements were resolved by consensus. Item-level compliance (the proportion rated Yes or Partial Yes) and overall confidence were compared with the 2009-2019 figures. Results Of 751 records screened, 26 reviews were included (median of eight primary studies). Overall confidence was critically low in 16, low in seven, and moderate in three; none was high. A total of 10 of 26 (38%) reached low confidence or better, versus two of 81 (2%) in 2009-2019. Compliance was higher for an a priori protocol (5% to 88%), the provision of an excluded-studies list (5% to 46%), and the specification of population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) (65% to 100%). Conversely, accounting for the risk of bias when interpreting results was lower (88% to 35%). Reporting the funding of individual included studies remained rare in both eras (4%). Inter-rater agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.47). Conclusions The AMSTAR-2 compliance of high-impact HF systematic reviews was higher in 2021-2025 than in 2009-2019, most markedly for protocol reporting, though most reviews remained critically low. Reviews were less likely to carry risk-of-bias findings into their interpretation; one interpretation is that registration has become routine while substantive appraisal has not.
SN - 2168-8184
ER -