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
Spin
Inference
General medical
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
Number of systematic reviews included 200
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.
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? No