Meningioma Systematic Reviews
Eight electronic databases/registries were searched to identify eligible meningioma Systematic Reviews with and without meta-analysis published between January 1990 and December 2020. Articles concerning spinal meningioma were excluded. Reporting and methodological quality were assessed against the following tools: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2), and Risk Of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS).
116 Systematic Reviews were identified, of which 57 were SRMAs (49.1%). The mean PRISMA score for SRMA was 20.9 out of 27 (SD 3.9, 77.0% PRISMA adherence), and for SR without meta-analysis was 13.8 out of 22 (SD 3.4, 63% PRISMA adherence). Thirty-eight studies (32.8%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA. Methodological quality assessment against AMSTAR 2 revealed that 110 (94.8%) studies were of critically low quality. Only 21 studies (18.1%) were judged to have a low risk of bias against ROBIS.
The reporting and methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses were poor. Established guidelines and critical appraisal tools may be used as an adjunct to aid methodological conduct and reporting of such reviews, in order to improve the validity and transparency of research that may influence clinical practice 1).
Updated Systematic Review on the Role of Brain Invasion in Intracranial Meningiomas: What, When, Why? 2).
The Emerging Relevance of H3K27 Trimethylation Loss in Meningioma: A Systematic Review of Recurrence and Overall Survival with Meta-Analysis 3).
Seizure prophylaxis in meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis 4).
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between cyproterone acetate and intracranial meningiomas 5).
Volumetric growth of residual meningioma – A systematic review 6)