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

1. US National Library of Medicine. Key MEDLINE indicators. 2015 [cited 1 Sep 2015]. Available: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/bsd_key.html.

2. Murad M, Montori VM. Synthesizing evidence: shifting the focus from individual studies to the body of evidence. JAMA. 2013;309:2217–2218. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.5616 23736731

3. Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, Jaeschke R, Devereaux PJ, Prasad K, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2014;312:171–179. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.5559 25005654

4. Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383:166–175. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8 24411645

5. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383:267–276. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X 24411647

6. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78. 17388659

7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 19621072

8. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700 19622552

9. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 23585737

10. Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington (District of Columbia): National Academies Press; 2011.

11. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928 22008217

12. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. Establishing a new journal for systematic review products. Syst Rev. 2012;1:1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-1 22587946

13. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 20877712

14. Gianola S, Gasparini M, Agostini M, Castellini G, Corbetta D, Gozzer P, et al. Survey of the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews in rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2013;93:1456–1466. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120382 23744458

15. Turner L, Galipeau J, Garritty C, Manheimer E, Wieland LS, Yazdi F, et al. An evaluation of epidemiological and reporting characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews (SRs). PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e53536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053536 23341949

16. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology. 2013;269:413–426. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130273 23824992

17. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 25554246

18. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647 25555855

19. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. 2011 Mar [cited 21 Apr 2016]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available: http://handbook.cochrane.org/.

20. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063-EF. 2014 Jan [cited 21 Apr 2016]. Available: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/60/318/CER-Methods-Guide-140109.pdf.

21. StataCorp. Stata statistical software, release 13. College Station (Texas): StataCorp; 2013.

22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes. The odds ratio. BMJ. 2000;320:1468. 10827061

23. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–2012. 10789670

24. Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2014 [cited 24 Sep 2015]. Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.

25. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4002 21784880

26. Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Nasser M, Bossuyt PM, Korevaar DA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? Lancet. 2015 Sep 25. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4

27. Ioannidis JP, Chang CQ, Lam TK, Schully SD, Khoury MJ. The geometric increase in meta-analyses from China in the genomic era. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e65602. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065602 23776510

28. Nordic Cochrane Centre. Review Manager (RevMan), version 5.1. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre; 2011.

29. Barendregt JJ, Doi SA. MetaXL, version 1.4. Wilston (Australia): EpiGear International; 2013.

30. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2012.

31. Dewey M. CRAN task view: meta-analysis. 2015 Dec 18 [cited 3 Feb 2016]. Available: http://CRAN.R-project.org/view=MetaAnalysis.

32. Franzoni C, Scellato G, Stephan P. Science policy. Changing incentives to publish. Science. 2011;333:702–703. doi: 10.1126/science.1197286 21817035

33. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ. 2013;347:f4501. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4501 23873947

34. Jones CW, Keil LG, Weaver MA, Platts-Mills TF. Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis. Syst Rev. 2014;3:126. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-126 25348628

35. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ. 2012;344:d7202. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7202 22214754

36. Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2014;349:g6501. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6501 25416499

37. Chandler J, Churchill R, Higgins J, Lasserson T, Tovey D. Methodological standards for the reporting of new Cochrane intervention reviews, version 1.1. 2012 Dec 17 [cited 21 Apr 2016]. Available: http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/sites/editorial-unit.cochrane.org/files/uploads/MECIR%20Reporting%20standards%201.1_17122012_2.pdf.

38. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, Yazdi F, Turner L, Thielman J, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g3804. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3804 24965222

39. Smith TA, Kulatilake P, Brown LJ, Wigley J, Hameed W, Shantikumar S. Do surgery journals insist on reporting by CONSORT and PRISMA? A follow-up survey of ‘instructions to authors’. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2015;4:17–21.

40. Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2015;13:221. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y 26370288

41. PLoS Medicine Editors. From checklists to tools: lowering the barrier to better research reporting. PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001910. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001910 26600090

42. Moher D, Altman DG. Four proposals to help improve the medical research literature. PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001864. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001864 26393914

43. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Fergusson D, Cogo E, Horsley T, et al. Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:422–434. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.017 18394534

44. Schunemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia I, Falavigna M, Santesso N, Mustafa R, et al. Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. CMAJ. 2014;186:E123–E142. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.131237 24344144

45. Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225–234. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005 26092286