How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study

Ref ID 430
First Author C. Borges Migliavaca
Journal BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2020
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184711/pdf/12874_2020_Article_975.pdf
Keywords • General medical
• Disclosure
• Low reporting quality
• Protocols
• Risk of bias
Problem(s) • Search strategy not provided
• No quality assessment undertaken or reported
• Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
• No registered or published protocol
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Brazil
Aim To assess the methodological and reporting conduct of systematic reviews of prevalence published in MEDLINE between February 2017 and February 2018.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings 77% of included reviews did not report a published or registered review protocol. 24% did not report whether there was an external funding source for the review. 20% of reviews did not perform quality assessment of included studies. 68% of review presented the full search strategy for at least one database;
Number of systematic reviews included 235
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 325