Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental speciality

Tirzepatide-Induced Gastrointestinal Manifestations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis determine how frequently and how seriously gastrointestinal manifestations affect people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on tirzepatide. Tirzepatide is a recently developed drug that attempts to enhance type 2 diabetics' ability to regulate their blood sugar levels and promote weight reduction. Despite its potential benefits, clinical trials have revealed that the medication may lead to gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, vomiting, decreased appetite, dyspepsia, constipation, and diarrhea. These side effects may negatively affect the drug's efficacy and patient tolerance. A comprehensive search of electronic databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, was conducted to find pertinent studies reporting on the frequency and severity of gastrointestinal symptoms in type 2 diabetes patients receiving tirzepatide. This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed. Six randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,586 patients were included. Most patients received tirzepatide to regulate their blood sugar levels and promote weight reduction, and the comparators were placebo, glucagon-like peptide one receptor agonists drugs, and insulin degludec. The dose of tirzepatide was 5mg, 10mg, and 15mg weekly. The incidence rate of nausea in patients who receive tirzepatide was 20.43%, while the incidence rate in the comparators was 10.47%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.89 to 4.44; P ≤ 0.00001). The incidence rate of vomiting in patients who receive tirzepatide was 9.05%, while the rate in the comparators was 4.86%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.67 to 4.36; P ≤ 0.0001). The incidence rate of constipation in patients who receive tirzepatide was 2.54%, while the rate in the comparators was 0.856%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.83 to 5.20; P ≤ 0.0001). The incidence rate of decreased appetite in patients who receive tirzepatide was 9.64%, while the rate in the comparators was 2.88%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 5.04; 95% CI, 3.01 to 8.45; P ≤ 0.00001). The incidence rate of diarrhea in patients who receive tirzepatide was 16.24%, while the rate in the comparators was 8.63%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.60 to 2.68; P ≤ 0.00001). The incidence rate of dyspepsia in patients who receive tirzepatide was 7.13%, while the rate in the comparators was 3.31%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.58 to 4.01; P ≤ 0.0001). Tirzepatide usage is linked to a significant prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea, constipation, decreased appetite, dyspepsia, diarrhea, and vomiting, in people with type 2 diabetes. These findings may influence clinical decision-making and patient counseling on the use of tirzepatide and have significant implications for the medication's tolerance and efficacy. To find ways to reduce these negative effects and improve therapy for type 2 diabetes patients, more research is required.

Efficacy and safety of indocyanine green tracer-guided lymph node dissection in minimally invasive radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The implementation of indocyanine green (ICG) tracer-guided lymph node dissection is still in the preliminary stages of laparoscopic surgery, and its safety and efficacy for gastric cancer remain unclear.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify relevant subjects from inception to June 2022. The core indicators were the total number of harvested lymph nodes and the safety of the laparoscopic gastrectomy with ICG. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Thirteen studies and 2,027 participants were included (642 for the ICG-group and 1,385 for the non-ICG group). The mean number of lymph nodes dissected in the ICG group was significantly greater than that in the non-ICG group (WMD = 6.24, 95% CI: 4.26 to 8.22, P <0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the mean number of positive lymph nodes dissected between the ICG and the non-ICG groups (WMD = 0.18, 95% CI: −0.70 to 1.07, P = 0.879). Additionally, ICG gastrectomy did not increase the risk in terms of the operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative complications.

Conclusion

ICG tracer with favorable safety increases the number of harvested lymph nodes but not the number of positive lymph nodes in laparoscopic gastrectomy. More high-quality, large-sample-size randomized controlled trials are still needed to enhance this evidence.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-hospital mortality in cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis

AIMS

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in excess mortality due to both COVID-19 directly and other conditions, including cardiovascular (CV) disease. We aimed to explore the excess in-hospital mortality, unrelated to COVID-19 infection, across a range of CV diseases.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic search was performed for studies investigating in-hospital mortality among patients admitted with CV disease without SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with a period outside the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifteen studies on 27 421 patients with CV disease were included in the analysis. The average in-hospital mortality rate was 10.4% (n = 974) in the COVID-19 group and 5.7% (n = 1026) in the comparator group. Compared with periods outside the COVID-19 pandemic, the pooled risk ratio (RR) demonstrated increased in-hospital mortality by 62% during COVID-19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-2.20, P = 0.002]. Studies with a decline in admission rate >50% during the COVID-19 pandemic observed the greatest increase in mortality compared with those with <50% reduction [RR 2.74 (95% CI 2.43-3.10) vs. 1.21 (95% CI 1.07-1.37), P < 0.001]. The observed increased mortality was consistent across different CV conditions (P = 0.74 for interaction).

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital mortality among patients admitted with CV diseases was increased relative to periods outside the pandemic, independent of co-infection with COVID-19. This effect was larger in studies with the biggest decline in admission rates, suggesting a sicker cohort of patients in this period. However, studies were generally poorly conducted, and there is a need for further well-designed studies to establish the full extent of mortality not directly related to COVID-19 infection.

The effect of antibiotic resistance on Helicobacter pylori eradication efficacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The occurrence of antibiotic-resistant strains has been rapidly increasing due to the wide use of antibiotics. To evaluate the current effects of antibiotic resistance on Helicobacter pylori eradication efficacy, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA version 12.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 120 studies, including 28 707 patients, were assessed. Only first-line therapy was considered. The pooled RR of eradication rate in patients with Helicobacter pylori strains sensitive versus resistant to clarithromycin was 0.682 (95% CI: 0.636-0.731). The pooled RR of eradication rate in patients with Helicobacter pylori strains sensitive versus resistant to metronidazole was 0.843 (95% CI: 0.810-0.877). The pooled RR of eradication rate in patients with Helicobacter pylori strains sensitive versus resistant to levofloxacin was 0.794 (95% CI: 0.669-0.941). The pooled RR of eradication rate in patients with Helicobacter pylori strains sensitive versus resistant to dual clarithromycin and metronidazole was 0.674 (95% CI: 0.590-0.770).

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic resistance causes a decrease in the eradication rate of H pylori today. Quadruple concomitant therapy may overcome the declining H pylori eradication rate caused by metronidazole-only resistance.

The treatment modalities of masticatory muscle pain a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Numerous treatment modalities have been attempted for masticatory muscle pain in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). To compare the treatment efficacy of more than 2 competing treatments, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted.

METHODS

This study was reported with reference to the extended Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. Medline via Pubmed, Embase via OVID, and Cochrane Library Central were searched (up to February 11, 2019). Axis I protocol of Diagnostic Criteria or Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD, RDC/TMD) were chosen as diagnostic standards. The PICOS (Problem/patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design) method was used to screen trials under eligibility criteria. And the NMA was performed with mvmeta commands in Stata (StataCorp, Tex).

RESULTS

Of 766 studies searched, 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were finally included. Nineteen different therapies were found and further categorized into 9 treatment modalities. The general heterogeneity was not found among included trials. But predictive intervals (PrIs) were conspicuously wider than confidential intervals (CIs) of all pairwise comparisons, indicating that heterogeneity may exist between studies. Complementary therapy showed the greatest probability (42.7%) to be the best intervention. It also had the highest mean rank (2.3) in the rankogram and the biggest value of surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA, 84.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited evidence of available trials, complementary therapy seemed to be slightly more effective than remaining treatment modalities for pain reduction in TMD patients with masticatory muscle pain. High-quality randomized controlled trials are expected to validate the findings.

Therapies to limit myocardial injury in animal models of myocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Current myocarditis guidelines do not advocate treatment to prevent myocardial injury and scar deposition in patients with myocarditis and normal left ventricular ejection fraction. We aimed to ascertain the utility of beta blockers, calcium channel blockers and antagonists of the renin–angiotensin system in ameliorating myocardial injury, scar formation and calcification in animal in vivo models of myocarditis. The project was prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (CRD42018089336). Primary outcomes (necrosis, fibrosis and calcification) were meta-analysed with random-effects modelling. 52 studies were systematically reviewed. Meta-analysis was performed compared with untreated controls. In each study, we identified all independent comparisons of treatment versus control groups. The pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) indicated treatment reduced necrosis by 16.9% (71 controlled analyses, 95% CI 13.2–20.7%; P < 0.001), however there was less evidence of an effect after accounting for publication bias. Treatment led to a 12.8% reduction in fibrosis (73 controlled analyses, 95% CI 7.6–18.0%; P < 0.001). After accounting for publication bias this was attenuated to 7.8% but remained significant. Treatment reduced calcification by 4.1% (28 controlled analyses, 95% CI 0.2–8.0%; P < 0.0395). We observed significant heterogeneity in effect size in all primary endpoints, which was predominantly driven by differences between drug categories. Beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were the only agents that were effective for both necrosis and fibrosis, while only ACE inhibitors had a significant effect on calcification. This study provides evidence for a role for ACE inhibitors and beta blockers to prevent myocardial injury and scar deposition in in vivo models of myocarditis. There is a need for further well-designed studies to assess the translational application of these treatments.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on vertical bone regeneration

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality of systematic reviews of vertical bone regeneration techniques, using two quality-assessment tools (AMSTAR and ROBIS). An electronic literature search was conducted to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses that would evaluate at least one of the following outcomes: implant survival, success rates, complications or bone gain after vertical ridge augmentation. Methodological quality assessment was performed by two independent evaluators. Results were compared between reviewers, and reliability measures were calculated using the Holsti's method^® and Cohen's kappa. Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which seven presented meta-analysis. Mean ±95% confidence interval AMSTAR score was 6.35 [4.74;7.97], with higher scores being correlated with a smaller risk of bias (Pearson's correlation coefficient=-0.84; P<0.01). Cohen's inter-examiner kappa showed substantial agreement for both checklists. From the available evidence, we ascertained that, regardless of the technique used, it is possible to obtain vertical bone gains. Implant success in regenerated areas was similar to implants placed in pristine bone with results equating between 61.5% and 100% with guided bone regeneration being considered the most predictable technique regarding bone stability, while distraction osteogenesis achieved the biggest bone gains with the highest risk of possible complications.

Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors

Background

Previous research looking at published systematic reviews has shown that their search strategies are often suboptimal and that librarian involvement, though recommended, is low. Confidence in the results, however, is limited due to poor reporting of search strategies the published articles.

Objectives

To more accurately measure the use of recommended search methods in systematic reviews, the levels of librarian involvement, and whether librarian involvement predicts the use of recommended methods.

Methods

A survey was sent to all authors of English-language systematic reviews indexed in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from January 2012 through January 2014. The survey asked about their use of search methods recommended by the Institute of Medicine, Cochrane Collaboration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and if and how a librarian was involved in the systematic review. Rates of use of recommended methods and librarian involvement were summarized. The impact of librarian involvement on use of recommended methods was examined using a multivariate logistic regression.

Results

1560 authors completed the survey. Use of recommended search methods ranged widely from 98% for use of keywords to 9% for registration in PROSPERO and were generally higher than in previous studies. 51% of studies involved a librarian, but only 64% acknowledge their assistance. Librarian involvement was significantly associated with the use of 65% of recommended search methods after controlling for other potential predictors. Odds ratios ranged from 1.36 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.75) for including multiple languages to 3.07 (95% CI 2.06 to 4.58) for using controlled vocabulary.

Conclusions

Use of recommended search strategies is higher than previously reported, but many methods are still under-utilized. Librarian involvement predicts the use of most methods, but their involvement is under-reported within the published article.

Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Research indicates that the methods used to identify data for systematic reviews of adverse effects may need to differ from other systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To compare search methods in systematic reviews of adverse effects with other reviews.

METHODS

The search methodologies in 849 systematic reviews of adverse effects were compared with other reviews.

RESULTS

Poor reporting of search strategies is apparent in both systematic reviews of adverse effects and other types of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews of adverse effects are less likely to restrict their searches to MEDLINE or include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The use of other databases is largely dependent on the topic area and the year the review was conducted, with more databases searched in more recent reviews. Adverse effects search terms are used by 72% of reviews and despite recommendations only two reviews report using floating subheadings.

CONCLUSIONS

The poor reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews is universal, as is the dominance of searching MEDLINE. However, reviews of adverse effects are more likely to include a range of study designs (not just RCTs) and search beyond MEDLINE.

Methodological characteristics and treatment effect sizes in oral health randomised controlled trials: Is there a relationship? Protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

INTRODUCTION

It is fundamental that randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are properly conducted in order to reach well-supported conclusions. However, there is emerging evidence that RCTs are subject to biases which can overestimate or underestimate the true treatment effect, due to flaws in the study design characteristics of such trials. The extent to which this holds true in oral health RCTs, which have some unique design characteristics compared to RCTs in other health fields, is unclear. As such, we aim to examine the empirical evidence quantifying the extent of bias associated with methodological and non-methodological characteristics in oral health RCTs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We plan to perform a meta-epidemiological study, where a sample size of 60 meta-analyses (MAs) including approximately 600 RCTs will be selected. The MAs will be randomly obtained from the Oral Health Database of Systematic Reviews using a random number table; and will be considered for inclusion if they include a minimum of five RCTs, and examine a therapeutic intervention related to one of the recognised dental specialties. RCTs identified in selected MAs will be subsequently included if their study design includes a comparison between an intervention group and a placebo group or another intervention group. Data will be extracted from selected trials included in MAs based on a number of methodological and non-methodological characteristics. Moreover, the risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect size estimates and measures of variability for the main outcome will be extracted from each RCT included in selected MAs, and a two-level analysis will be conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach with a random effects model to allow for intra-MA and inter-MA heterogeneity.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The intended audiences of the findings will include dental clinicians, oral health researchers, policymakers and graduate students. The aforementioned will be introduced to the findings through workshops, seminars, round table discussions and targeted individual meetings. Other opportunities for knowledge transfer will be pursued such as key dental conferences. Finally, the results will be published as a scientific report in a dental peer-reviewed journal.

A descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991-2012: cross sectional study

Objectives

To identify all systematic reviews (SRs) published in the domain of oral health research and describe them in terms of their epidemiological and descriptive characteristics.

Design

Cross sectional, descriptive study.

Methods

An electronic search of seven databases was performed from inception through May 2012; bibliographies of relevant publications were also reviewed. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were oral health SRs defined as therapeutic or non-therapeutic investigations that studied a topic or an intervention related to dental, oral or craniofacial diseases/disorders. Data were extracted from all the SRs based on a number of epidemiological and descriptive characteristics. Data were analysed descriptively for all the SRs, within each of the nine dental specialities, and for Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs separately.

Results

1,188 oral health (126 Cochrane and 1062 non-Cochrane) SRs published from 1991 through May 2012 were identified, encompassing the nine dental specialties. Over half (n = 676; 56.9%) of the SRs were published in specialty oral health journals, with almost all (n = 1,178; 99.2%) of the SRs published in English and almost none of the non-Cochrane SRs (n = 11; 0.9%) consisting of updates of previously published SRs. 75.3% of the SRs were categorized as therapeutic, with 64.5% examining non-drug interventions, while approximately half (n = 150/294; 51%) of the non-therapeutic SRs were classified as epidemiological SRs. The SRs included a median of 15 studies, with a meta-analysis conducted in 43.6%, in which a median of 9 studies/1 randomized trial were included in the largest meta-analysis conducted. Funding was received for 25.1% of the SRs, including nearly three-quarters (n = 96; 76.2%) of the Cochrane SRs.

Conclusion

Epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of the 1,188 oral health SRs varied across the nine dental specialties and by SR category (Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane). There is a clear need for more updates of SRs in all the dental specialties.

Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011

OBJECTIVE

An increasing amount of research and guidelines has been published on search methodology and the reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews. This research assessed whether this has lead to any improvements in the reporting and quality of searching in systematic reviews of adverse effects.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

All records within Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were scanned for systematic reviews of adverse effects. Data were then extracted on the methods used for information retrieval in these reviews and a descriptive analysis conducted by publication year.

RESULTS

A total of 849 reviews published from 1994 to 2011 met the inclusion criteria. There has been a significant increase (P<0.001) in the number of adverse effects reviews per year from 1994 (n=5) to 2010 (n=104). Some improvements were apparent, such as an increase in the number of databases searched and fewer date and language restrictions applied. However, there has been an increase in reviews limited to data from randomized controlled trials, whereas the reporting of search strategies could still be improved further, with only 9% (74/849) of the reviews reporting reproducible searches.

CONCLUSION

Some improvements in searching systematic reviews of adverse effects are apparent; however, poor reporting of search strategies remains a great obstacle to readers.

Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic-related systematic reviews

Ideally, healthcare systematic reviews (SRs) should be beneficial to practicing professionals in making evidence-based clinical decisions. However, the conclusions drawn from SRs are directly related to the quality of the SR and of the included studies. The aim was to investigate the methodological quality and key descriptive characteristics of SRs published in prosthodontics. Methodological quality was analysed using the Assessment of Multiple Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Several electronic resources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and American Dental Association's Evidence-based Dentistry website) were searched. In total 106 SRs were located. Key descriptive characteristics and methodological quality features were gathered and assessed, and descriptive and inferential statistical testing performed. Most SRs in this sample originated from the European continent followed by North America. Two to five authors conducted most SRs; the majority was affiliated with academic institutions and had prior experience publishing SRs. The majority of SRs were published in specialty dentistry journals, with implant or implant-related topics, the primary topics of interest for most. According to AMSTAR, most quality aspects were adequately fulfilled by less than half of the reviews. Publication bias and grey literature searches were the most poorly adhered components. Overall, the methodological quality of the prosthodontic-related systematic was deemed limited. Future recommendations would include authors to have prior training in conducting SRs and for journals to include a universal checklist that should be adhered to address all key characteristics of an unbiased SR process.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions provides instructions for documenting a systematic review's electronic database search strategy, listing elements that should be in the description. Complete documentation of the search strategy allows readers to evaluate the search when critically appraising a review's quality.

OBJECTIVE

The research analyzed recently published Cochrane reviews to determine whether instructions for describing electronic database search strategies were being followed.

METHODS

Eighty-three new reviews added to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the first quarter of 2006 were selected for analysis. Eighteen were subsequently excluded because their searches were conducted only in the specialized registers of Cochrane review groups. The remaining sixty-five reviews were analyzed for the seven elements of an electronic database search strategy description listed in the Cochrane Handbook, using dual review with consensus.

RESULTS

Of the 65 reviews analyzed, none included all 7 recommended elements. Four reviews (6%) included 6 elements. Thirty-two percent (21/65) included 5 or more elements, with 68% (44/65) including 4 or fewer. Three included only 2 elements. The 65 reviews represented 41 different Cochrane review groups.

CONCLUSION

The instructions from the Cochrane Handbook for reporting search strategies are not being consistently employed by groups producing Cochrane reviews.