Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study

Jasmin Helbach · Dawid Pieper · Tim Mathes · Tanja Rombey · Hajo Zeeb · Katharina Allers +1 more

67 citations0/0 files storedBMC Medical Research Methodology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Restrictions in systematic reviews (SRs) can lead to bias and may affect conclusions. Therefore, it is important to report whether and which restrictions were used. This study aims to examine the use of restrictions regarding language, publication period, and study type, as well as the transparency of reporting in SRs of effectiveness. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted with a random sample of 535 SRs of effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019. The use of restrictions and their reporting were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the total 535 SRs included, four out of every ten (41.3%) lacked information on at least one of the three restrictions considered (language, publication period, or study type). Overall, 14.6% of SRs did not provide information on restrictions regarding publication period, 19.1% regarding study type, and 18.3% regarding language. Of all included SRs, language was restricted in 46.4%, and in more than half of the SRs with restricted language (130/248), it was unclear whether the restriction was applied during either the search or the screening process, or both. The restrictions were justified for publication period in 22.2% of the respective SRs (33/149), study type in 6.5% (28/433), and language in 3.2% (8/248). Differences in reporting were found between countries as well as between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is a lack of transparency in reporting on restrictions in SRs. Authors as well as editors and reviewers should be encouraged to improve the reporting and justification of restrictions to increase the transparency of SRs.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 67 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews 1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement 2020JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis 2015ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed

Cited by

2023Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional metaresearch study

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.