The search and selection for primary studies in systematic reviews published in dental journals indexed in MEDLINE was not fully reproducible

Ref ID 366
First Author C. M. Faggion Jr
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29476922/
Keywords • Reproducibility
• Grey literature
• Low methodological quality
• Dentistry
Problem(s) • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
• Grey literature excluded
• Methods not described to enable replication
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Germany
Aim To assess the reproducibility of reporting of search strategies and the primary study selection process in dental systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals from June 2015 to June 2016.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings None of the included systematic reviews had complete reporting of the search strategies and selection process. 1.5% of systematic reviews reported the list of excluded articles (with reasons for exclusion) after title and abstract assessment. Systematic reviews with better reporting of searches and selection criteria were significantly associated with higher journal impact factor, number of citations, and inclusion of meta-analysis.
Number of systematic reviews included 530
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 812
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description