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 Reproducibility
Statistical
Pre-specification
Low reporting quality
Non-Cochrane reviews
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes