Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of surgical randomized clinical trials

Ref ID	62
First Author	J. Yu
Journal	BJS OPEN
Year Of Publishing	2020
URL	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7260405/pdf/BJS5-4-535.pdf
Keywords	• Surgery • Transparency • Protocols • Low reporting quality • Risk of bias • Pre-specification
Problem(s)	• Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported • Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • No registered or published protocol • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Number of systematic reviews included	204
Summary of Findings	A number of PRISMA reporting criteria were frequently not met. Three items reported less than 50% of the time: accessibility of a review protocol and registration information; statement of all variables where data was sought, and the description of intervention details; and description of funding source for systematic reviews.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes