Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Background Lack of appropriate reporting of methodological details has previously been shown to distort risk of bias assessments in randomized controlled trials. The same might be true for observational studies. The goal of this study was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment for risk of bias between reviewers and authors of cohort studies included in a published systematic review on risk factors for severe outcomes in patients infected with influenza. Methods Cohort studies included in the systematic review and published between 2008–2011 were included. The corresponding or first authors completed a survey covering all NOS items. Results were compared with the NOS assessment applied by reviewers of the systematic review. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using kappa (K) statistics. Results Authors of 65/182 (36%) studies completed the survey. The overall NOS score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the reviewers’ assessment (median = 6; interquartile range [IQR] 6–6) compared with those by authors (median = 5, IQR 4–6). Inter-rater reliability by item ranged from slight (K = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.19, 0.48) to poor (K = −0.06, 95% CI = −0.22, 0.10). Reliability for the overall score was poor (K = −0.004, 95% CI = −0.11, 0.11). Conclusions Differences in assessment and low agreement between reviewers and authors suggest the need to contact authors for information not published in studies when applying the NOS in systematic reviews.

We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the cardiovascular risk associated with the metabolic syndrome as defined by the 2001 National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) and 2004 revised National Cholesterol Education Program (rNCEP) definitions. Numerous studies have investigated the cardiovascular risk associated with the NCEP and rNCEP definitions of the metabolic syndrome. There is debate regarding the prognostic significance of the metabolic syndrome for cardiovascular outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Medline databases through June 2009 for prospective observational studies investigating the cardiovascular effects of the metabolic syndrome. Two reviewers extracted data, which were aggregated using random-effects models. We identified 87 studies, which included 951,083 patients (NCEP: 63 studies, 497,651 patients; rNCEP: 33 studies, 453,432 patients). There was little variation between the cardiovascular risk associated with NCEP and rNCEP definitions. When both definitions were pooled, the metabolic syndrome was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) (relative risk [RR]: 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.02 to 2.73), CVD mortality (RR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.87 to 3.08), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.39 to 1.78), myocardial infarction (RR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.61 to 2.46), and stroke (RR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.80 to 2.85). Patients with the metabolic syndrome, but without diabetes, maintained a high cardiovascular risk. The metabolic syndrome is associated with a 2-fold increase in cardiovascular outcomes and a 1.5-fold increase in all-cause mortality. Studies are needed to investigate whether or not the prognostic significance of the metabolic syndrome exceeds the risk associated with the sum of its individual components. Furthermore, studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms by which the metabolic syndrome increases cardiovascular risk. Copyright © 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.