Samenvatting

Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is
accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important
sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative
provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this
study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement.
Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI
Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted
and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement.
Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately.
Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence
(mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring
adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions
(mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001).
Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency
medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active
journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.