Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study

Open access
 

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs.
 

Conclusions

An increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research.
 

What Do These Findings Mean?

• We conclude that systematic reviews have become increasingly popular and that, similar to a decade ago, the quality of conduct and reporting varies widely; therefore, readers should not accept the findings of systematic reviews uncritically.
•  We recommend a number of strategies to improve the value of systematic reviews, such as the development of software to facilitate better reporting, certified training for journal editors in how to implement the use of reporting guidelines such as PRISMA (http://prisma-statement.org/), and formal training of biomedical researchers in research design and analysis.