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 Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs.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

Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines

Irreproducibility in Searches of Scientific Literature: A Comparative Analysis.

Search Characteristics and Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments: A Cross-Sectional Study

From Quorom To Prisma: A Survey Of High-Impact Medical Journals' Instructions To Authors And A Review Of Systematic Reviews In Anesthesia Literature

Retrieval, Reporting and Methodological Characteristics for Systematic Reviews/meta-Analyses of Animal Models: a Metaepidemiological Study

Methodological and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of animal studies

Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Meta-Analysis: Applications in Veterinary Medicine

The standards of reporting randomized trials in pets (PetSORT): Methods and development processes

Adherence to PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines and scope of systematic reviews published in nursing: A cross‐sectional analysis

Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation

Reporting of Search Strategy Among Systematic Reviews in Leading Dental Specialty Journals: A Research‐On‐Research Study

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews

Reporting practices of anesthetic and analgesic use in rodent orthopedic research

Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of common issues

Quality assessment of reporting of animal studies on pathogenesis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. A systematic review using the ARRIVE guidelines

Development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of animal experiments in the field of traditional Chinese medicine

A PRISMA Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews of Nursing Published in the Cochrane Library and Paper-Based Journals

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

The reporting completeness of observational systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social science could be improved: a cross-sectional survey

ANALYSIS OF REPORTING GUIDELINE AND TRIAL REGISTRATION POLICIES AMONG GERIATRIC JOURNALS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture.