Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study - PubMed (original) (raw)
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study
Matthew J Page et al. PLoS Med. 2016.
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 Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs.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.
Conflict of interest statement
I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: MJP is a research fellow for the Australasian Cochrane Centre. ACT and FCL are authors of three of the systematic reviews included in this study, but were not involved in eligibility assessment or data extraction. DM is a member of PLOS Medicine’s editorial board.
Figures
Similar articles
- Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
Crider K, Williams J, Qi YP, Gutman J, Yeung L, Mai C, Finkelstain J, Mehta S, Pons-Duran C, Menéndez C, Moraleda C, Rogers L, Daniels K, Green P. Crider K, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article. - Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Moher D, et al. PLoS Med. 2007 Mar 27;4(3):e78. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. PLoS Med. 2007. PMID: 17388659 Free PMC article. - An evaluation of epidemiological and reporting characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews (SRs).
Turner L, Galipeau J, Garritty C, Manheimer E, Wieland LS, Yazdi F, Moher D. Turner L, et al. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e53536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053536. Epub 2013 Jan 14. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 23341949 Free PMC article. - 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 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.
Cited by
- Cutting-Edge Methodological Guidance for Authors in Conducting the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Sumsuzzman DM, Kim Y, Baek S, Hong Y. Sumsuzzman DM, et al. J Lifestyle Med. 2024 Aug 31;14(2):57-68. doi: 10.15280/jlm.2024.14.2.57. J Lifestyle Med. 2024. PMID: 39280938 Free PMC article. Review. - 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. - Effectiveness of eHealth Interventions in Improving Medication Adherence Among Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Miao Y, Luo Y, Zhao Y, Liu M, Wang H, Wu Y. Miao Y, et al. J Med Internet Res. 2024 Jul 15;26:e58013. doi: 10.2196/58013. J Med Internet Res. 2024. PMID: 39008845 Free PMC article. Review. - Patient, caregiver and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives: a scoping review protocol.
Munce SEP, Wong E, Luong D, Rao J, Cunningham J, Bailey K, John T, Barber C, Batthish M, Chambers K, Cleverley K, Crabtree M, Diaz S, Dimitropoulos G, Gorter JW, Grahovac D, Grimes R, Guttman B, Hébert ML, Henze M, Higgins A, Khodyakov D, Li E, Lo L, Macgregor L, Mooney S, Severino SM, Mukerji G, Penner M, Pidduck J, Shulman R, Stromquist L, Trbovich P, Wan M, Williams L, Yates D, Toulany A. Munce SEP, et al. BMJ Open. 2024 May 8;14(5):e080822. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080822. BMJ Open. 2024. PMID: 38719333 Free PMC article.
References
- US National Library of Medicine. Key MEDLINE indicators. 2015 [cited 1 Sep 2015]. Available: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/bsd_key.html.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials