Paper – Systematic Reviewlution

Ref ID	162
First Author	A. Synnot
Journal	PLOS ONE [ELECTRONIC RESOURCE]
Year Of Publishing	2018
URL	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6013193/pdf/pone.0198676.pdf
Keywords	Protocols Grey literature Error Publication bias Risk of bias Neurology Searching Currency Single reviewer
Problem(s)	No registered or published protocol Grey literature excluded Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Single reviewer / lack of double checking Poor consideration of publication bias No quality assessment undertaken or reported Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies Outdated searches
Number of systematic reviews included	85
Summary of Findings	Approximately half of the systematic reviews lacked currency, in that they did not include most recently published eligible randomised controlled trial (45%). One-third of reviews were incomplete, meaning they appeared to miss one or more eligible randomised controlled trial (35%). Approximately one-quarter of the RCTs in the acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury are not included in any systematic review, thus limiting their ability to impact upon practice. Between half to one-third of systematic reviews reported using two independent reviewers (n = 53, 62.4%) or including unpublished studies (n = 45, 52.9%). Similar numbers of systematic reviews were found to have used their quality assessment ratings to interpret review findings (n = 58, 68.2%), or to have explicitly considered publication bias (n = 41, 48.2%).Only one-third of systematic review authors reported a study protocol (n = 29, 34.1%) and provided a full account of included and excluded studies (n = 30, 35.3%). No systematic review included both review-level and included study-level conflict of interest/funding information.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes