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
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? N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No