| Ref ID | 927 |
| First Author | S. de Kock |
| Journal | INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2020 |
| URL | https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462320002135 |
| Keywords |
• Non-Cochrane reviews • Searching • Low reporting quality • General medical • Reproducibility |
| Problem(s) |
• Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • Search strategy not provided • Following guidelines is no guarantee of a rigorous systematic review |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Checklists |
• PRISMA 2009 • ROBIS |
| Aim | To evaluate the methodological and reporting characteristics of search methods of systematic reviews (SRs) using the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 505 included systematic reviews taken from KSR Evidence in 2016. Of 238 (47%) systematic reviews in the sample which claimed that their methods adhered to PRISMA 2009. Of these, 144 (44%) systematic reviews that made this claim were compliant with the description of information sources, and 92 (39%) were compliant with the reporting of a search strategy. In total only 48 (20%) systematic reviews that claimed to be PRISMA-compliant in their methods reported both items 7 (description of all information sources) and 8 (present full electronic search strategy for at least one database) of PRISMA 2009 adequately, so that search methods could be repeated. The study authors argue that study included systematic reviews from 167 different journals that listed PRISMA as a requirement and noncompliance was an issue in more than three quarters (eighty-four percent), and would therefore argue that the noncompliance of no. 7 and no. 8 is not restricted to a few journals or subject areas. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 505 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 505 |