Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of otorhinolaryngologic articles based on the PRISMA statement

Ref ID	573
First Author	J. P. Peters
Journal	PLOS ONE
Year Of Publishing	2015
URL	https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26317406/
Keywords	Cochrane Abstract / summary Risk of bias Otolaryngology Low reporting quality Searching
Problem(s)	Low reporting (PRISMA) quality Insufficient literature searches Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries
Number of systematic reviews included	80
Summary of Findings	From 80 included systematic reviews, Cochrane reviews performed very well on PRISMA reporting whereas non-Cochrane reviews performed poorly on several items. The most inadequate criteria were: protocol registration, risk of bias/ quality assessment, declaration of financial support. Cochrane reviews however, performed worse on PRISMA for abstracts than non-Cochrane reviews.
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