skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

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

PLoS medicine, 2016-05, Vol.13 (5), p.e1002028-e1002028 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

COPYRIGHT 2016 Public Library of Science ;COPYRIGHT 2016 Public Library of Science ;2016 Public Library of Science. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited: Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. (2016) Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med 13(5): e1002028. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 ;2016 Page et al 2016 Page et al ;2016 Public Library of Science. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited: Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. (2016) Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med 13(5): e1002028. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 ;ISSN: 1549-1676 ;ISSN: 1549-1277 ;EISSN: 1549-1676 ;DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 ;PMID: 27218655

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study
  • Author: Page, Matthew J ; Shamseer, Larissa ; Altman, Douglas G ; Tetzlaff, Jennifer ; Sampson, Margaret ; Tricco, Andrea C ; Catalá-López, Ferrán ; Li, Lun ; Reid, Emma K ; Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael ; Moher, David
  • Low, Nicola
  • Subjects: Analysis ; Bias ; Bibliographic data bases ; Biomedical research ; Biomedical Research - statistics & numerical data ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Epidemiologic Methods ; Epidemiology ; Funding ; Humans ; Medical research ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Medicine, Experimental ; Physical Sciences ; Quality ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Research Design ; Researchers ; Review Literature as Topic ; Science publishing ; Studies
  • Is Part Of: PLoS medicine, 2016-05, Vol.13 (5), p.e1002028-e1002028
  • Description: 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. 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. 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.
  • Publisher: United States: Public Library of Science
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: ISSN: 1549-1676
    ISSN: 1549-1277
    EISSN: 1549-1676
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
    PMID: 27218655
  • Source: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
    GFMER Free Medical Journals
    MEDLINE
    PubMed Central
    Public Library of Science (PLoS)
    ProQuest Central
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait