Quality and clarity in systematic review abstracts: an empirical study

Ref ID 624
First Author A. Y. Tsou
Journal RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS
Year Of Publishing 2016
URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/jrsm.1221?download=true
Keywords • Abstract / summary
• General medical
• Spin
• Inference
Problem(s) • Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries
• Incorrect interpretation or statistical inference error from meta-analysis
• Spin or subjective interpretation of findings
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country United States
Checklists • PRISMA-A
Aim To evaluate a random sample of 200 systematic review abstracts (published in 2014) comparing interventions in the general medical literature according to adherence to PRISMA-A criteria; problematic wording in conclusions; and whether “positive” studies described clinical significance.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings From 200 included abstracts, an average reported 60% of PRISMA-A checklist items (mean 8.9 ± 1.7, range 4 to 12). Only 49% described effects in terms meaningful to patients and clinicians (e.g., absolute measures), and only 43% mentioned strengths/limitations of the evidence base. For “negative” outcomes, the authors identified problematic simple restatements (20%), vague “no evidence of effect” wording (9%), and wishful wording statements (8%) which frame non-significant results to reflect the authors’ bias regarding an expected direction.
Number of systematic reviews included 200
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 12654
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description