Characteristics of Systematic Reviews
Author Information
Author(s): Moher David, Tetzlaff Jennifer, Tricco Andrea C, Sampson Margaret, Altman Douglas G
Primary Institution: Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute
Hypothesis
How many systematic reviews are being published and how well are their methods being reported?
Conclusion
The quality of reporting in systematic reviews is inconsistent, suggesting a need for better reporting guidelines.
Supporting Evidence
- 300 systematic reviews were identified, suggesting a current annual publication rate of about 2,500.
- 90.7% of reviews were reported in specialty journals.
- 71.0% of reviews were categorized as therapeutic, including a median of 16 studies.
Takeaway
This study looked at many systematic reviews to see how well they were written and found that some important details were often missing.
Methodology
Data were collected from systematic reviews indexed in Medline during November 2004 using a 51-item data collection form.
Potential Biases
Many reviews did not report key aspects of their methodology, which could lead to bias in their conclusions.
Limitations
The study only included reviews from one month and one database, which may not represent all systematic reviews.
Participant Demographics
The reviews included over 33,700 separate studies with more than a third of a million participants.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website