Systematic review search methods evaluated using the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews tool

Ref ID 927
First Author S. de Kock
Year Of Publishing 2020
Keywords Reproducibility
General medical
Low reporting quality
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
Search strategy not provided
Following guidelines is no guarantee of a rigorous systematic review
Number of systematic reviews included 505
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.
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? No