| Ref ID | 1003 |
| First Author | M.S. Cumpston |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
| URL | https://www-sciencedirect-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0895435623002548?via%3Dihub |
| Keywords |
• Low reporting quality • Public health |
| Problem(s) |
• Methods not described to enable replication • Intervention not described / defined • Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • Review question not justified / important |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Australia |
| Aim | To examine the characteristics of population, intervention and outcome groups and the extent to which they were completely reported for each synthesis in a sample of systematic reviews (SRs) of interventions. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | In the 100 randomly sampled Systematic Reviews (SRs) published in 2018 of public health and health systems, authors commonly used population, intervention and outcome groups to structure comparisons, but these groups were often incompletely reported. For example, of 41 SRs that identified and/or used intervention groups for comparisons, 29 (71%) identified the groups in their methods description before reporting of the results (e.g., in the Background or Methods), 12 (29%) defined the groups in enough detail to replicate decisions about which included studies were eligible for each synthesis, 6 (15%) provided a rationale, and 24 (59%) stated that the groups would be used for comparisons. Sixteen (39%) SRs used intervention groups in their synthesis without any mention in the methods. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 100 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 166 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |