To assess the reporting quality of abstracts (PRISMA-A) of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analyses in multiple databases published from January 2011 to December 2017.
Level of Investigation
Descriptive
Summary of Findings
There was moderate compliance with PRISMA-A with the poorest adherence for protocol registration (0.57%); funding information (2%); methods of risk of bias assessment (30%); brief summary of evidence (36%) and results of risk of bias assessment (49%).
Number of systematic reviews included
529
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed
5296
Treatment impacted
No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted
Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description
Does the article have a publicly available protocol?
No
Did the review team include both methodological and clinical experts?
Not Applicable
Sampling strategy for obtaining the systematic reviews under assessment
Comprehensive searches on a particular topic (clinical or methodological)
Was the sample size of systematic reviews subject to any formal sample size or power calculation?
No
Were any or all of the study selection and data extraction performed in duplicate?
Yes
Were any statistical adjustments made to correct for confounding?
Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?
