- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Overly stringent inclusion criteria affecting external validity
- Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study
| Ref ID | 871 |
| First Author | J. Helbach |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-022-01710-w |
| Keywords |
Language Low reporting quality Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
Low reporting (PRISMA) quality Methods not described to enable replication Overly stringent inclusion criteria affecting external validity Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews Language restriction |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 535 |
| Summary of Findings | From 525 systematic reviews of effectiveness randomly sampled from PubMed on 1 January 2020. Four out of every ten (41.3%) lacked information on at least one of the three restrictions considered (language, publication period, or study type). Overall, 14.6% of systematic reviews did not provide information on restrictions regarding publication period, 19.1% regarding study type, and 18.3% regarding language. Of all included systematic reviews, language was restricted in 46.4%, and in more than half of the systematic reviews with restricted language (130/248), it was unclear whether the restriction was applied during either the search or the screening process, or both. |
| 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 |