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 Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs.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.

Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Surgical Randomized Clinical Trials.

Quality of Reporting in Surgical Randomized Clinical Trials.

The Methodological Quality of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials: A Cross-Sectional Systemic Review.

Methodological Quality for Systematic Reviews of Adverse Events with Surgical Interventions: a Cross-Sectional Survey.

Registration and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews on Surgical Intervention: A Meta-epidemiological Study

Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses

Characteristics, Results, and Reporting of Contemporary Surgical Trials: A Systematic Review and Analysis

Methodology Standards Associated with Quality Reporting in Clinical Studies in Pediatric Surgery Journals.

The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed

A Cross-sectional literature survey showed the reporting quality of multicenter randomized controlled trials should be improved

Randomized Controlled Trialquality Evaluation on the Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses Related to Interventions Published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Are Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Improving over Time? A Systematic Review of 284 Articles Published in High-Impact General and Specialized Medical Journals

Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials on Laparoscopic Surgery for Treating Colorectal Disease in Three SCI Indexed Journals

REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol

The assessment of the quality of reporting of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in diagnostic tests published by authors in China.

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

The reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in leading medical journals between 2019 and 2020: a systematic review

Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review

Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts in Operative Dentistry: an Assessment Using the PRISMA for Abstracts Guidelines.

Quality of Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Therapeutic Cardiovascular Medical Devices.

The Methodological Quality of Robotic Surgical Meta-Analyses Needed to Be Improved: a Cross-Sectional Study.