Synthesis methods other than meta-analysis were commonly used but seldom specified: survey of systematic reviews

Ref ID	859
First Author	M.S. Cumpston
Journal	JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2023
URL	https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435623000148?via%3Dihub
Keywords	• Non-Cochrane reviews • Pre-specification • Low reporting quality • Statistical • Reproducibility
Problem(s)	• Methods not described to enable replication • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE)
Number of systematic reviews included	100
Summary of Findings	From 100 randomly sampled systematic reviews of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 from the Health Evidence and Health Systems Evidence databases. Most (78%) of the included systematic reviews specified (that is, defined or discussed in the text) meta-analysis. Other synthesis methods were rarely specified (5/100). In five systematic reviews, the authors stated that they did not intend to statistically synthesize results, and in 15 no information about synthesis methods was specified.
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