Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews - PubMed (original) (raw)
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews
David Moher et al. PLoS Med. 2007.
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly popular to a wide range of stakeholders. We set out to capture a representative cross-sectional sample of published SRs and examine them in terms of a broad range of epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics, including emerging aspects not previously examined.
Methods and findings: We searched Medline for SRs indexed during November 2004 and written in English. Citations were screened and those meeting our inclusion criteria were retained. Data were collected using a 51-item data collection form designed to assess the epidemiological and reporting details and the bias-related aspects of the reviews. The data were analyzed descriptively. In total 300 SRs were identified, suggesting a current annual publication rate of about 2,500, involving more than 33,700 separate studies including one-third of a million participants. The majority (272 [90.7%]) of SRs were reported in specialty journals. Most reviews (213 [71.0%]) were categorized as therapeutic, and included a median of 16 studies involving 1,112 participants. Funding sources were not reported in more than one-third (122 [40.7%]) of the reviews. Reviews typically searched a median of three electronic databases and two other sources, although only about two-thirds (208 [69.3%]) of them reported the years searched. Most (197/295 [66.8%]) reviews reported information about quality assessment, while few (68/294 [23.1%]) reported assessing for publication bias. A little over half (161/300 [53.7%]) of the SRs reported combining their results statistically, of which most (147/161 [91.3%]) assessed for consistency across studies. Few (53 [17.7%]) SRs reported being updates of previously completed reviews. No review had a registration number. Only half (150 [50.0%]) of the reviews used the term "systematic review" or "meta-analysis" in the title or abstract. There were large differences between Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews in the quality of reporting several characteristics.
Conclusions: SRs are now produced in large numbers, and our data suggest that the quality of their reporting is inconsistent. This situation might be improved if more widely agreed upon evidence-based reporting guidelines were endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals. These results substantiate the view that readers should not accept SRs uncritically.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing Interests: All of the authors are members of the Cochrane Collaboration. Four of the authors (DM, JT, MS, and DA) have been extensively involved with conceptualizing, developing, updating, and promoting the QUOROM Statement.
Figures
Figure 1. Flow of Citations through the Cross-Sectional Identification and Retrieval of Systematic Reviews Indexed in Medline during November 2004
Comment in
- Reporting of systematic reviews: the challenge of genetic association studies.
Khoury MJ, Little J, Higgins J, Ioannidis JP, Gwinn M. Khoury MJ, et al. PLoS Med. 2007 Jun;4(6):e211. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040211. PLoS Med. 2007. PMID: 17593896 Free PMC article. No abstract available. - Reporting of systematic reviews: better software required.
Brogger J. Brogger J. PLoS Med. 2007 Jun;4(6):e225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040225. PLoS Med. 2007. PMID: 17594174 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
- Survey of the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews in rehabilitation.
Gianola S, Gasparini M, Agostini M, Castellini G, Corbetta D, Gozzer P, Li LC, Sirtori V, Taricco M, Tetzlaff JM, Turolla A, Moher D, Moja L. Gianola S, et al. Phys Ther. 2013 Nov;93(11):1456-66. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120382. Epub 2013 Jun 6. Phys Ther. 2013. PMID: 23744458 - Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Catalá-López F, Li L, Reid EK, Sarkis-Onofre R, Moher D. Page MJ, et al. PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028. eCollection 2016 May. PLoS Med. 2016. PMID: 27218655 Free PMC article. - Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions published in Chinese journals.
Ma B, Qi GQ, Lin XT, Wang T, Chen ZM, Yang KH. Ma B, et al. J Altern Complement Med. 2012 Sep;18(9):813-7. doi: 10.1089/acm.2011.0274. J Altern Complement Med. 2012. PMID: 22924413 Review. - Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.
Zhang J, Wang J, Han L, Zhang F, Cao J, Ma Y. Zhang J, et al. Nurs Outlook. 2015 Jul-Aug;63(4):446-455.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.11.020. Epub 2014 Dec 4. Nurs Outlook. 2015. PMID: 26187084 Review. - Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine interventions published in Chinese journals.
Ma B, Guo J, Qi G, Li H, Peng J, Zhang Y, Ding Y, Yang K. Ma B, et al. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e20185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020185. Epub 2011 May 25. PLoS One. 2011. PMID: 21633698 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
- Major mistakes or errors in the use of trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews or meta-analyses - the METSA systematic review.
Riberholt CG, Olsen MH, Milan JB, Hafliðadóttir SH, Svanholm JH, Pedersen EB, Lew CCH, Asante MA, Pereira Ribeiro J, Wagner V, Kumburegama BWMB, Lee ZY, Schaug JP, Madsen C, Gluud C. Riberholt CG, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Sep 9;24(1):196. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02318-y. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024. PMID: 39251912 Free PMC article. - Methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the association between sleep duration and hypertension.
Yang Q, Xian H, Cheng X, Wu X, Meng J, Chen W, Zeng Z. Yang Q, et al. Syst Rev. 2024 Aug 6;13(1):211. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02622-0. Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 39107813 Free PMC article. - Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades.
Andersen MZ, Zeinert P, Rosenberg J, Fonnes S. Andersen MZ, et al. Syst Rev. 2024 May 2;13(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02531-2. Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 38698429 Free PMC article. - Use of mHealth in promoting maternal and child health in "BIMARU" states of India "A health system strengthening strategy": Systematic literature review.
Singh K, Walters MR. Singh K, et al. PLOS Digit Health. 2024 Feb 2;3(2):e0000403. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000403. eCollection 2024 Feb. PLOS Digit Health. 2024. PMID: 38306391 Free PMC article. Review. - Evolution of appraisal tool usage preferences in PROSPERO records: a study of non-Cochrane systematic reviews.
Ruano J, Gay-Mimbrera J, Aguilar-Luque M, Gómez-García F, Parra-Peralbo E, Isla-Tejera B. Ruano J, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Dec 14;23(1):294. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02114-0. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023. PMID: 38097923 Free PMC article.
References
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf. Accessed 24 January 2006.
- Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet. 2005;366:107. - PubMed
- Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:450–455. - PubMed
- McAlister FA, Clark HD, van Walraven C, Straus SE, Lawson F, et al. The medical review article revisited: Has the science improved? Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:947–951. - PubMed
- Mulrow CD. The medical review article: State of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485–488. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources