Many reviews are systematic but some are more transparent and completely reported than others
2007
Transparency in Systematic Reviews
Sample size: 300
Editorial
Evidence: low
Author Information
Author(s): The PLoS Medicine Editors
Primary Institution: Public Library of Science
Conclusion
The quality of reporting in many systematic reviews is disappointing, particularly in non-Cochrane reviews.
Supporting Evidence
- Only 11% of non-Cochrane reviews included a pre-specified protocol.
- Only 2% of non-Cochrane reviews were updates.
- Less than 7% of reviews used a QUOROM flowchart.
Takeaway
This study looked at how well systematic reviews are reported, and found that many don't follow important guidelines, which can lead to confusion about treatment options.
Methodology
The study assessed the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews indexed on PubMed over a one-month period.
Potential Biases
There is a risk of selective outcome reporting bias in non-Cochrane reviews.
Limitations
The study only provides a snapshot of systematic reviews published in one month, which may not represent the overall quality.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website