Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of clinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric urology: can practices on contemporary highest levels of evidence be built?

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a comprehensive summary of research studies and are used to assess clinical evidence, form policy and construct guidelines. This is pertinent to childhood surgery with issues of consent and condition prevalence. The aims of this study were to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of these reviews and to identify how these reviews might guide clinical practice amongst those conditions most commonly encountered and managed by practicing paediatric urologists. METHODS: A systematic search of the English literature was performed to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on clinical paediatric urology (1/1/1992-1/12/2018) to include common paediatric urological conditions managed by paediatric urology residents/fellows. To these reviews, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2 and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) scores were applied. Univariate linear regression and descriptive statistical methods were performed. RESULTS: From an initial literature review of 1723 articles, 227 were included in the analysis. Inter-reviewer agreement was high amongst 3 independent reviewers (κ = 0.92). Eighty-four percent of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published since 2009 following publication of the PRISMA guidelines. The overall impact factor was 3.38 (0.83-17.58), with adherence to AMSTAR-2 criteria 48.46% and PRISMA criteria 70.1%. From a methodological perspective, 15% of reviews were of moderate quality, 65% were of low quality and 20% reviews were of critically low quality, with none found to have good quality reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the continued increase of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric urology from which many guidelines are based, a significant number of reviews contain poor methodology and, to a lesser extent, poor reporting quality. Journals should consider having specific 'a priori' criteria based on checklists before publication of manuscripts to ensure the highest possible reporting quality.

Structured opioid-free protocol following outpatient hypospadias repair - A prospective SQUIRE 2.0-compliant quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioids have been extensively to manage postoperative pain in children. A growing body of evidence from the adult literature, suggests however, that healthcare providers may be prescribing far more opioids than required, with some studies demonstrating equivalent post-operative pain and clinical outcomes with their omission. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this prospective study were to assess the current heterogeneity of practice in post-operative opioids prescription following day case hypospadias surgery, to establish a streamlined discharge protocol, and to reduce the use of post-operative opioid prescription by 30% within a 4 month period through the use of systemic forcing functions and education. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective study was approved by the Quality Improvement (QI) sub-committee of the hospital's Research and Ethics Board (REB) and was compliant with the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) guidelines. Recruited parents (n = 84) were contacted for telephone interview following a combined intervention of education and omission of post-operative opioids from the discharge prescription. A mixture of qualitative and quantitative techniques were employed including an initial process analysis to assess current opioid use, the creation of balancing measures, and the creation of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. Age, procedure, post-operative outcomes and opioid prescription data were recorded over a period of 6 months in 2019. RESULTS: Initial measures in our process analysis demonstrated significant institutional practice variation amongst our 84 post-intervention patients. Our process and fidelity measures confirmed 100% information provision. Following the point of intervention, there was a significant and sustained drop in opioid prescription, with an absolute reduction of 35%, and a relative reduction of 56%. There was no significant difference in patient age, pain scores, or outcomes pre- and post-intervention. DISCUSSION: We have shown in this study that a sustainable decrease in post-operative opioid prescriptions following hypospadias surgery is possible. We managed to achieve a relative reduction 56% which is comparable to other specialties, however, did it within a quality improvement framework to ensure fidelity and no adverse balancing measures. We also managed to reduce the number of doses prescribed in those receiving opioids post-intervention at week 9. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates opioids can be safely omitted in hypospadias cohorts without any adverse clinical outcomes or balancing measures. We recommend that opioids be used extremely judiciously in this population in order to minimize exposure in children.