Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study

@article{Page2016EpidemiologyAR,
  title={Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study},
  author={Matthew J. Page and Larissa Shamseer and Douglas G. Altman and Jennifer Marie Tetzlaff and Margaret Sampson and Andrea C. Tricco and Ferr{\'a}n Catal{\'a}-L{\'o}pez and Lun Li and Emma K. Reid and Rafael Sarkis-Onofre and David Moher},
  journal={PLoS Medicine},
  year={2016},
  volume={13}
}
Background Systematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol
TLDR
This meta-epidemiological study will explore characteristics of PROSPERO records that may be associated with the publication of a completed systematic review, and help to improve review workflow performance.
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews
TLDR
The study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews and demonstrates that a considerable number of pre clinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent.
The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study
TLDR
Results did not change in a systematic manner (i.e., regularly over- or underestimating treatment effects), suggesting that selective searching may not introduce bias in terms of effect estimates.
A descriptive analysis of non-Cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews published in 2014
TLDR
The findings show that high-quality non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs may not be practical nor easy for knowledge users to find, and improvements are needed to ensure that evidence syntheses published outside of the Cochrane Library adhere to the high standard of conduct and reporting characteristic of Cochrane SRs.
Unpublished systematic reviews and financial support: a meta-epidemiological study
TLDR
The publication status of registered SRs in the 1st year that PROSPERO was launched and the association between publication and the existence of funding or conflicts of interest (COIs) was assessed.
Epidemiology of systematic reviews in imaging journals: evaluation of publication trends and sustainability?
TLDR
The SR publication rate is increasing rapidly compared with the rate of growth of non-SRs; however, they still make up just over 1% of all studies; authors, reviewers and editors should be aware of methodological and reporting standards specific to imaging systematic reviews including those for DTA and individual patient data.
Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews
TLDR
UK HTA systematic reviews are often produced within a specific policy-making context and tend to present standards of conduct and reporting equivalent to “gold standard” Cochrane reviews and superior to systematic reviews more generally.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 62 REFERENCES
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews
TLDR
There were large differences between Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews in the quality of reporting several characteristics, and the view that readers should not accept SRs uncritically is substantiated.
An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)
TLDR
The two samples of reviews exhibited different strengths and weaknesses, and in some cases there were consistencies across items which indicate the need for continued improvements in reporting for all SR reports.
Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation
TLDR
This sample of SRs in the rehabilitation field showed heterogeneous characteristics and a moderate quality of reporting, suggesting poor control of potential source of bias might be improved if more widely agreed-upon evidence-based reporting guidelines will be actively endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals.
Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis
TLDR
Clinical trials registry searches are not routinely included in systematic reviews published in major medical journals, suggesting routine examination of registry databases may allow a more accurate characterization of publication and outcome reporting biases and improve the validity of estimated effects of medical treatments.
Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review.
Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.
TLDR
A checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion should improve the usefulness ofMeta-an analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers.
Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews
TLDR
The number of reviews suspected of outcome reporting bias as a result of missing or partially reported harm related outcomes from at least one eligible study is high and the declaration of important harms and the quality of the reporting of harm outcomes must be improved in both primary studies and systematic reviews.
Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review
TLDR
The completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals’ endorsement, and insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completenessOf reporting of published health research reports.
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
TLDR
The meaning and rationale for each checklist item is explained, and an example of good reporting is included and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are included.
Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement?
TLDR
In major radiology journal studies, there was modest improvement in completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, assessed by PRISMA, which was strongly associated with higher study quality, assessed by AMSTAR.
...
...