[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002028.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew J Page
  • Larissa Shamseer
  • Douglas G Altman
  • Jennifer Tetzlaff
  • Margaret Sampson
  • Andrea C Tricco
  • Ferrán Catalá-López
  • Lun Li
  • Emma K Reid
  • Rafael Sarkis-Onofre
  • David Moher
Abstract
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 characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs. Methods and Findings: We searched MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014. Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria. Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate. We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews, and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs. We identified 682 SRs, suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade. The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China, the UK, or the US; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants. Meta-analysis was performed in 63% of SRs, mostly using standard pairwise methods. Study risk of bias/quality assessment was performed in 70% of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis (16%). Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs. Reporting quality was highly variable; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol, eligibility criteria relating to publication status, years of coverage of the search, a full Boolean search logic for at least one database, methods for data extraction, methods for study risk of bias assessment, a primary outcome, an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations, or the funding source of the SR. Cochrane SRs, which accounted for 15% of the sample, had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs. Reporting has generally improved since 2004, but remains suboptimal for many characteristics. Conclusions: An increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research. In a cross-sectional manuscript analysis, David Moher and colleagues score the prevalence, quality of conduct and completeness of reporting among systematic reviews published across medical disciplines in 2014.Why Was This Study Done?: What Did the Researchers Do and Find?: What Do These Findings Mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew J Page & Larissa Shamseer & Douglas G Altman & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Margaret Sampson & Andrea C Tricco & Ferrán Catalá-López & Lun Li & Emma K Reid & Rafael Sarkis-Onofre & David Moher, 2016. "Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-30, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002028
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Schniedermann, 2021. "A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9829-9846, December.
    2. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    3. Masahiro Banno & Yasushi Tsujimoto & Kunihiro Kohmura & Eisuke Dohi & Shunsuke Taito & Hidehiro Someko & Yuki Kataoka, 2022. "Unclear Insomnia Concept in Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Epidemiological Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-10, September.
    4. Tiago S. Jesus & Greta Castellini & Silvia Gianola, 2022. "Global health workforce research: Comparative analyses of the scientific publication trends in PubMed," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 1351-1365, May.
    5. Nargiz Travis & Marie Knoll & Steven Cook & Hayoung Oh & Christopher J. Cadham & Luz María Sánchez-Romero & David T. Levy, 2023. "Chemical Profiles and Toxicity of Electronic Cigarettes: An Umbrella Review and Methodological Considerations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Bodil Hoffmeyer & Siv Fonnes & Kristoffer Andresen & Jacob Rosenberg, 2023. "Use of inactive Cochrane reviews in academia: A citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2923-2934, May.
    7. Nargiz Travis & Marie Knoll & Christopher J. Cadham & Steven Cook & Kenneth E. Warner & Nancy L. Fleischer & Clifford E. Douglas & Luz María Sánchez-Romero & Ritesh Mistry & Rafael Meza & Jana L. Hirs, 2022. "Health Effects of Electronic Cigarettes: An Umbrella Review and Methodological Considerations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-23, July.
    8. Esther Maassen & Marcel A L M van Assen & Michèle B Nuijten & Anton Olsson-Collentine & Jelte M Wicherts, 2020. "Reproducibility of individual effect sizes in meta-analyses in psychology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Xiaoqin Wang & Vivian Welch & Meixuan Li & Liang Yao & Julia Littell & Huijuan Li & Nan Yang & Jianjian Wang & Larissa Shamseer & Yaolong Chen & Kehu Yang & Jeremy M. Grimshaw, 2021. "The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), March.
    10. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    11. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2022. "Priorities in Bioeconomy Strategies: A Systematic Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, October.
    12. Clemens Blümel & Alexander Schniedermann, 2020. "Studying review articles in scientometrics and beyond: a research agenda," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 711-728, July.
    13. Sadri, Arash, 2022. "The Ultimate Cause of the “Reproducibility Crisis”: Reductionist Statistics," MetaArXiv yxba5, Center for Open Science.
    14. Abimbola A Ayorinde & Iestyn Williams & Russell Mannion & Fujian Song & Magdalena Skrybant & Richard J Lilford & Yen-Fu Chen, 2020. "Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research: A meta-epidemiological study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, January.
    15. Sarfraz Aslam & Atif Saleem & Teresa J. Kennedy & Tribhuwan Kumar & Khalida Parveen & Huma Akram & BaoHui Zhang, 2022. "Identifying the Research and Trends in STEM Education in Pakistan: A Systematic Literature Review," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(3), pages 21582440221, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002028. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.