A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cochrane review abstracts are getting longer, but this has no large impact on the reporting quality

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting of abstracts of Cochrane Reviews according to PRISMA-A and to investigate a possible association with the abstract´s length.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational study based on all Cochrane Reviews indexed in Medline (via PubMed) until November 18, 2022. In the second part, a random sample of 440 abstracts was drawn, in which PRISMA-A adherence was assessed by two independent reviewers. Analyses were stratified by the year of publication and the number of words.

RESULTS

Overall, the median number of words of the 15,188 included abstracts was 469 (IQR 389-686 words), steadily increasing from 353 words in 2000 to 838 words in 2022, with less than one percent of the abstracts in 2022 having ≤ 300 words (in 2000: 30.7%). Analyses on PRISMA-A adherence in the random sample showed a mean score of 6.1 out of 12 fully reported items. Stratified by year, PRISMA-A adherence increased, with higher word counts in 2000-2010 and 2011-2015, while there was no difference in PRISMA-A adherence by abstract length in 2016-2022.

CONCLUSION

Over the years, abstracts of Cochrane Reviews have become longer, running up to 1000 words. This conflicts with the Cochrane Handbook, which recommends a maximum length of 400 until it was aligned with MECIR in 2019, which has recommended a length of <700 words since 2012 but allows up to 1000 words. It is debatable whether such long abstracts meet the key goals of abstracts of being informative, accurate, appealing, and concise.

Current status of the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews related to implant dentistry: a literature survey

The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews (SRs) related to implant dentistry and to assess the possible factors associated with the reporting quality. Abstracts of SRs in the field of implant dentistry, published in the last 5 years, were searched. The reporting quality was assessed and scored using the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist (PRISMA-A). The overall PRISMA-A score (OPS) and relative score (OPS%) per review were calculated according to adherence to the criteria presented in the checklist. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify possible factors associated with reporting quality. Overall, 310 SRs were eligible for this study. Based on the maximum PRISMA-A score (score of 12), the mean OPS was 6.5 and OPS% was 54.2%. The items 'title', 'objectives', and 'number of included studies' were those most frequently reported in the abstracts, while the items 'registration' and 'funding' were the least reported. According to multivariable linear regression, the geographical origin of the articles was the only factor associated with better quality of abstract reporting, with higher OPS for SRs from Europe when compared to North America (coefficient 0.73; P = 0.049). The reporting quality of abstracts in SRs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal and needs to be improved. Journals should encourage adherence to reporting checklists in SRs.

THE REPORTING QUALITY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ABSTRACTS IN LEADING GENERAL DENTAL JOURNALS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts published in leading general dental journals according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) guidelines, and to identify factors associated with overall reporting quality.

METHODS

We identified SR abstracts published in 10 leading general dental journals and assessed their reporting quality. For each abstract, an overall reporting score (ORS, range: 0-13) was calculated. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated to compare the reporting quality of abstracts in Pre-PRISMA (2011-2012) and Post-PRISMA (2017-2018) periods. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality.

RESULTS

A total of 104 eligible abstracts were included. The mean ORS was 5.59 (SD = 1.48) and 6.97 (1.74) respectively in the Pre- and Post-PRISMA abstracts, with statistically significant difference (mean difference = 1.38; 95% CI: 0.70, 2.05). Reporting of the exact P-value (B = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.99) was a significant predictor of higher reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of SR abstracts published in leading general dental journals improved after the release of PRISMA-A guidelines, but is still suboptimal. Relevant stakeholders need to work together to enhance the reporting quality of SR abstracts in dentistry.

Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist

Objective

We appraised the reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) published in one urology journal and explored associations between abstract characteristics and completeness of reporting.

Methods

The Arab Journal of Urology (AJU) was searched for SR/MAs published between January 2011 and 31 May 2022. SR/MAs with structured abstract and quantitative synthesis were eligible. Two reviewers simultaneously together selected the SR/MAs by title, screened the abstracts, and included those based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data of a range of characteristics were extracted from each SR/MAs into a spreadsheet. To gauge completeness of reporting, the PRISMA-Abstract checklist (12 items) was used to appraise the extent to which abstracts adhered to the checklist. For each abstract, we computed item, section, and overall adherence. Chi-square and t-tests compared the adherence scores. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified the abstract characteristics associated with overall adherence.

Results

In total, 66 SR/MAs published during the examined period; 62 were included. Partial reporting was not uncommon. In terms of adherence to the 12 PRISMA-A items were: two items exhibited 100% adherence (title, objectives); five items had 80% to <100% adherence (interpretation, included studies, synthesis of results, eligibility criteria, and information sources); two items displayed 40% to <80% adherence (description of the effect, strengths/limitations of evidence); and three items had adherence that fell between 0% and 1.6% (risk of bias, funding/conflict of interest, registration). Multivariable regression revealed two independent predictors of overall adherence: single-country authorship (i.e. no collaboration) was associated with higher overall adherence (P = 0.046); and abstracts from South America were associated with lower overall adherence (P = 0.04).

Conclusion

This study is the first to appraise abstracts of SR/MAs in urology. For high-quality abstracts, improvements are needed in the quality of reporting. Adoption/better adherence to PRISMA-A checklist by editors/authors could improve the reporting quality and completeness of SR/MAs abstracts.

Reporting according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) depends on abstract length

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate reporting of abstracts of systematic reviews according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) 2013 checklist.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A random sample of 534 systematic reviews on effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019 was assessed. Adherence of abstracts to PRISMA-A was analysed using descriptive statistics. Results were stratified by number of words, structure, and year of publication.

RESULT

The mean score of fully reported PRISMA-A items was 5.4 of 12, with adherence varying widely between items (0% to 98.8%). Cochrane reviews received higher mean total scores than non-Cochrane reviews (6.3 vs. 5.2). Adherence to PRISMA-A increased linearly with increasing word count. In non-Cochrane reviews, authors of structured abstracts more often adhered to PRISMA-A than those of unstructured abstracts. No improvements in reporting of abstracts were found after the implementation of PRISMA-A in 2013.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to PRISMA-A shows great potential for improvement. Therefore, authors, editors, and reviewers should be made aware of PRISMA-A by referring to it in the journal submission guidelines. As adherence to PRISMA-A increases with the number of words, journals should consider to increase the word limit to 250-300 words.

Unclear Insomnia Concept in Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

There are two possible ways to conceptualize the term "insomnia": insomnia disorder and insomnia symptoms, which are often poorly reported. The purpose of this study was to examine the proportion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) that mention insomnia in their abstracts and cannot distinguish between insomnia disorder and insomnia symptoms from the abstract. We included RCT and SR articles that included the word "insomnia" in the methods or results sections of their structured abstracts, published after 2010. We searched PubMed using English language restrictions on 10 March 2022. From 1580 PubMed articles, we obtained 100 random samples each for eligible RCTs and SRs. The unclear insomnia concept accounted for 88% of the RCT abstracts and 94% of the SR abstracts. Among the RCT and SR abstracts with unclearness, the concept of insomnia was unclear in 27% of RCTs and 57% of SRs after investigating the full text. The concept of insomnia has been unclear in many RCTs and SRs abstracts. The authors of RCTs and SRs are recommended to state "insomnia disorder" or "insomnia symptoms" in the methods and results sections of their abstracts.

Reporting completeness in abstracts of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in cardiovascular diseases is suboptimal

OBJECTIVE

Journal abstracts are crucial for the identification and initial assessment of content of studies. We evaluated whether authors in the field of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) reported Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews (DTA SRs) abstracts adequately, as defined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-DTA guidelines.

METHODS

SRs of DTA studies in CVDs published in general and specialized medical journals were identified in a MEDLINE search between 2010-2020. Adherence to 12 PRISMA-DTA for abstracts items was assessed independently by two reviewers and compared by journal's type. Moreover, the association of reporting completeness with different characteristics was investigated.

RESULTS

We included 72 abstracts. Studies published in general medical journals had higher mean reporting score than those in specialized journals (6.2 vs 5.3 out of 12 items; mean difference: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.21, 1.55). PRISMA-DTA adherence was higher in journals that adopted this guideline and in articles with structured abstracts. However, number of participants analysed, funding and registration were the least-reported items in the identified abstracts.

CONCLUSION

The reporting of abstracts of DTA reports in CVDs is suboptimal according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines. Abstract reporting could be improved with the use of higher word count limits and the adoption of PRISMA-DTA guidelines especially in specialized journals.

A Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Sports Physical Therapy: A Review of Reviews

This review of reviews aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of sports physical therapy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This review of reviews included a literature search; in total, 2047 studies published between January 2015 and December 2020 in the top three journals related to sports physical therapy were screened. Among the 125 identified articles, 47 studies on sports physical therapy were included in the analysis (2 systematic reviews and 45 meta-analyses). There were several problems areas, including a lack of reporting for key components of the structured summary (10/47, 21.3%), protocol and registration (18/47, 38.3%), risk of bias in individual studies (28/47, 59.6%), risk of bias across studies (24/47, 51.1%), effect size and variance calculations (5/47, 10.6%), additional analyses (25/47, 53.2%), and funding (10/47, 21.3%). The quality of the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies on sports physical therapy was low to moderate. For better evidence-based practice in sports physical therapy, both authors and readers should examine assumptions in more detail, and report valid and adequate results. The PRISMA guideline should be used more extensively to improve reporting practices in sports physical therapy.

Review on Ethnoveterinary Practices in Sub-Saharan Africa

Background: Livestock represents an important sector for the livelihood of sub-Saharan African countries' inhabitants. In these countries, farmers raise livestock to meet household food demands and as additional sources of incomes, but its production is hampered by rampant animal diseases. The impact of animal diseases is particularly severe for poor communities that, although relying heavily on livestock, have limited access to modern veterinary services and therefore rely on indigenous medicines for the treatment of livestock ailments. Methods: The current review focuses on the ethnoveterinary health management practices found amongst livestock producers in sub-Saharan Africa. Documents were sourced from Google databases. Results: A total of 56 documents were reviewed, most of which were published recently (after 2000). The documents revealed the wide use of ethnoveterinary medicines among livestock producers in sub-Saharan African countries because of their cost and accessibility, threats to ethnomedicinal plant species through improper harvesting methods, overexploitation, the existence of inappropriate ethnoveterinary practices, and methods of conserving ethnomedicinal species. Conclusions: Given the persistent threats posed to ethnoveterinary medicine and/or practices in developing countries of sub-Saharan Africa, the findings of this review highlight the importance of integrating and promoting the use of ethnoveterinary medicine that is likely to be lost if it is not given enough importance. It is also important to obtain an overview of recent publications on ethnoveterinary medicines to identify the gaps and scope required to be filled by future studies. It is envisaged that the review will stimulate further ethnoveterinary research among livestock disease management practices, which could lead to new pharmaceuticals in the region.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments and Interventions

BACKGROUND

Spin - the misrepresentation of a study's results - has been identified in abstracts of studies focused on a variety of disorders from multiple fields of medicine.

OBJECTIVES

This study's primary objective was to evaluate the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of atopic dermatitis for the nine most severe forms of spin.

METHODS

We systematically searched Embase and MEDLINE for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis therapies. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study characteristics.

RESULTS

Our searches retrieved 2,456 studies, of which 113 were included for data extraction. Spin was found in 74.3% of our included studies (84/113). Spin type 6 occurred most frequently (68/113, 60.2%). Spin types 1, 2, and 9 were not identified. All industry-funded systematic reviews contained spin in their abstract. The presence of spin was not associated with any specific study characteristics, including the methodological quality of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe forms of spin were found in the majority of abstracts for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis treatments. Steps should be taken to prevent spin to improve the quality of reporting in abstracts.

Factors associated with the reporting quality of low back pain systematic review abstracts in physical therapy: a methodological study

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of systematic reviews (SR) are frequently used to guide clinical decision-making. However, if the abstract is inadequately reported, key information may be missing and it may not accurately summarize the results of the review.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate 1) if abstracts are fully reported; 2) if abstract reporting is associated with review/journal characteristics in physical therapy for low back pain (LBP); and 3) if these abstracts are consistent with the corresponding full texts.

METHODS

We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database for SRs in physical therapy for LBP published between 2015 and 2017. Associations between abstract reporting quality and review/journal characteristics were explored with linear regression. Abstract reporting was assessed with the 12 item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist. Consistency of reporting between abstracts and the full text was evaluated by comparing responses to each item of the PRISMA-A using Kappa coefficients. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2).

RESULTS

We included 66 SRs, 9 Cochrane and 57 non-Cochrane. Review methodological quality ranged from 'high' (8%) to 'critically low' (76%). The mean ± SD of the "total number of PRISMA-A fully reported items" (range 0-12 points for fully reported items) was 4.1 ± 1.9 points for non-Cochrane review abstracts and 9.9 ± 1.1 points for Cochrane abstracts. Factors associated with reporting quality of abstracts were: journal impact factor (ß 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.35), number of words in abstract (ß 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01) and review methodological quality ('critically low' with ß -3.06; 95% CI: -5.30, -0.82; with 'high' as reference variable). There was typically inconsistent reporting between abstract and full text, with most Kappa values lower than 0.60.

CONCLUSIONS

The abstracts of SRs in physical therapy for LBP were poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text. The reporting quality of abstracts was higher in journals with a higher impact factor, in abstracts with a greater number of words, and when the review was of higher methodological quality.

Do not make clinical decisions based on abstracts of healthcare research: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the reporting quality of healthcare abstracts and inconsistencies between abstracts and full texts.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This systematic review included overviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) that summarized data of healthcare abstracts on reporting of abstracts and consistency of abstracts with the full text. Searches were performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases from 1900 to February 2019. Two authors screened the overviews and extracted the data. All analyses were descriptive and divided into two main groups: abstracts' reporting quality and abstracts' consistency with the full text. Abstracts were considered poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text if more than 5% of abstracts' information was not fully reported or not consistent with the full text.

RESULTS

27 overviews analyzing 5,194 RCTs and 866 SRs were retrieved for reporting quality of abstracts. A total of 22 overviews analyzing 2,025 RCTs and 551 SRs were included for consistency of abstracts with the full text. Abstracts across all healthcare areas presented poor reporting quality and were inconsistent with the full texts, with results and conclusions as the most inconsistent sections.

CONCLUSION

Abstracts of healthcare RCTs and SRs have shown a large room for improvement in reporting quality and consistency with the full text. Authors, journal editors and reviewers need to give the highest priority to this matter.

There is still room for improvement in the completeness of abstract reporting according to the PRISMA-A checklist: a cross-sectional study on systematic reviews in periodontology

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the completeness of reporting abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) before and after the publication of the PRISMA-A checklist in 2013 and to assess if an association exists between abstract characteristics and the completeness of reporting.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the PubMed and Scopus databases in March 2020. The search focused on the SRs of evaluations of interventions published since 2002 in the field of periodontology. The abstracts of the selected SRs were divided into two groups before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist in 2013, and compliance with the 12 items reported in the checklist was evaluated by three calibrated evaluators.

RESULTS

A set of 265 abstracts was included in the study. The total score before (mean score, 53.78%; 95% CI, 51.56-55.90%) and after (mean score, 56.88%; 95% CI, 55.39-58.44%) the publication of the PRISMA-A statement exhibited a statistically significant improvement (P = 0.012*). Nevertheless, only the checklist items included studies and synthesis of the results displayed a statistically significant change after guideline publication. The total PRISMA-A score was higher in the meta-analysis group and in articles authored by more than four authors.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of the PRISMA-A was statistically significant, but the majority of the items did not improve after its introduction. The editors and referees of periodontal journals should promote adherence to the checklist to improve the quality of the reports and provide readers with better insight into the characteristics of published studies.

Clinical Knowledge Supported Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) Risk Assessment Model for Elderly Patients

From the clinical viewpoint, the statistical approach is still the cornerstone for exploring many diseases. This study was conducted to explore the risk factors related to acute kidney injury (AKI) for elderly patients using the multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. Ten nephrologists from a teaching hospital in Taipei took part in forming the AKI risk assessment model. The key findings are: (1) Comorbidity and Laboratory Values would influence Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment; (2) Frailty is the highest influential AKI risk factor for elderly patients; and (3) Elderly patients could enhance their daily activities and nutrition to improve frailty and lower AKI risk. Furthermore, we illustrate how to apply MCDM methods to retrieve clinical experience from seasoned doctors, which may serve as a knowledge-based system to support clinical prognoses. In conclusion, this study has shed light on integrating multiple research approaches to assist medical decision-making in clinical practice.

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in operative dentistry: An assessment using the PRISMA for Abstracts guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in operative dentistry published before and after the release of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts (PRISMA-A), and to identify factors associated with reporting quality.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for abstracts published during 2010-2012 (Pre-PRISMA period) and 2017-2019 (Post-PRISMA period). Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 13-item PRSIMA-A checklist. Risk ratio (RR) was used to compare the adequate reporting rate of each item between the two periods. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality.

RESULTS

A total of 160 abstracts were included and assessed. Only four items ('objective', 'results of main outcomes', 'description of the effect' and 'interpretation') were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75 %). According to the multivariable analysis, greater word count (P = 0.001), being published in the Post-PRISMA period (P = 0.025) and geographic origin from Asia (P = 0.025) or South America (P = 0.015) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS/CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The reporting quality of SR abstracts in operative dentistry had improved significantly after the publication of PRISMA-A, but was still suboptimal. Researchers, reviewers and journal editors in operative dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-A checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of SR abstracts.

An Evaluation of the Presence of Spin in the Abstracts of Tonsillectomy Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Spin-the practice of adding or omitting information intentionally or unintentionally to make the results of a study more favorable-may influence clinical decision making, especially when present in study abstracts. Here, we quantify and characterize the presence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews regarding tonsillectomy.

METHODS

This study is an analysis of systematic review abstracts. Searches were conducted on September 23, 2019 on PubMed and Embase using the advanced search feature to retrieve systematic reviews regarding tonsillectomies. The nine most severe forms of spin were then evaluated. Spin was classified by two investigators in parallel, with each blinded to the classifications of the other. Study characteristics were also recorded in duplicate. Consensus meetings between investigators were held to resolve disagreements.

RESULTS

In the 85 included systematic reviews, at least one form of spin was present in 44.7% (38/85) of abstracts. Journals with higher impact factors were less likely to contain spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews (point biserial correlation coefficient of -0.30). No statistically significant associations were found between the presence of spin and intervention type (P = .56) or adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (P = .08); however, there was a significant association between spin and funding source (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Spin was common in the abstracts of our sample of tonsillectomy systematic reviews. Researchers, clinicians, and peer reviewers could benefit from learning to recognize spin in medical literature. Further research is needed into the effects of spin on clinical decision making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 2020.

Has the Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts in Nursing Improved Since the Release of PRISMA for Abstracts? A Survey of High-Profile Nursing Journals

BACKGROUND

The PRISMA for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) was developed to guide authors to present a structured abstract. However, the adherence of abstracts to these guidelines in some areas was of concern.

AIMS

To determine whether the publication of PRISMA-A resulted in an improvement in the abstracts reported with nursing systematic reviews (SRs).

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study. We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials-based SRs published in top-tier nursing journals. A PRISMA-A checklist was used to assess abstracts in the SR included. Total score on checklists, comparison of total scores between two periods, and effect factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, abstract reporting compliance with PRISMA-A has not improved significantly with the time span. Of the 81 SRs, 74.1% were structured. About half reported eligibility criteria, information sources, and description of the effect as recommended. Registration status was reported only in 4.9%. The reporting quality was significantly higher for journals with higher impact factors (p < .001).

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

Although not inclusive of all SRs in the nursing field, our sample reflects the general trend that there was no significant improvement in the compliance of SR abstracts reported in nursing with the release of PRISMA-A. There is room for improvement, as most items have not been fully reported.

Biomedical conferences’ author instructions rarely mention guidelines for reporting abstracts of trials and systematic reviews

Aim: To analyze whether instructions for authors of biomedical conference abstracts mention guidelines for writing randomized controlled trial and systematic review abstracts and to evaluate reasons for their absence from instructions. Materials & methods: We analyzed instructions for authors of biomedical conferences advertized in 2019 and assessed whether they mentioned Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. We surveyed contact persons from abstract/publication committees of selected conferences to analyze why relevant guidelines were missing. Results: Instructions for abstracts were available for 819 conferences. Only two (0.2%) had reporting instructions for randomized controlled trial/systematic review authors. Almost half of the contacted conference organizers whose response we received were not aware of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. Conclusion: Conference organizers do not require and are not familiar enough with reporting guidelines.

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A).

METHODS

Abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics published in PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases before March 23, 2018, that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, were evaluated using the 12 items of PRISMA-A, scoring each item from 0 to 2. Abstracts were classified into 2 groups: before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist. Three calibrated evaluators (intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa > 0.8) assessed the scores for compliance with the checklist. The number of authors, country of affiliation of the first author, performance of meta-analysis, and topic of the article were recorded. A regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between abstract characteristics and the PRISMA-A scores.

RESULTS

Of 1034 abstracts evaluated, 389 were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-A score was 53.39 (95% CI, 51.83-54.96). The overall score for studies published after the publication of the checklist was significantly higher than for studies published before (P ≤ 0.0001). The components returning significantly higher scores after publication of PRISMA-A were title (P = 0.024), information from databases (P = 0.026), risk of bias (P ≤ 0.0001), included studies (P ≤ 0.0001), synthesis of results (P ≤ 0.0001), interpretation of results (P = 0.035), financing and conflict of interest (P ≤ 0.0001), and registration (P ≤ 0.0001). These results showed the positive effect of PRISMA-A had on the quality of reporting of orthodontics systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the poor adherence revealed that there is still need for improvement in the quality of abstract reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of abstracts of orthodontic systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased after the introduction of PRISMA-A.

Conference abstracts describing systematic reviews on pain were selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to determine the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts presented at World Congresses on Pain (WCPs) and to quantify agreement in results presented in those abstracts with their corresponding full-length publications.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We screened abstracts of five WCPs held from 2008 to 2016 to find abstracts describing SRs. Two authors searched for corresponding full publications using PubMed and Google Scholar in April 2018. Methods and outcomes extracted from abstracts were compared with their corresponding full publications. The reporting quality of abstracts was evaluated against the PRISMA for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 143 conference abstracts describing SRs. Of these, 90 (63%) were published as full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals by April 2018, with a median time from conference presentation to publication of 5 months (interquartile range: -0.25 to 14 months). Among 79 abstract-publication pairs evaluable for discordance, there was some form of discordance in 40% of pairs. Qualitative discordance (different direction of the effect) was found in 13 analyzed pairs (16%). The median adherence by abstracts to each PRISMA-A checklist item was 33% (interquartile range: 29% to 42%).

CONCLUSION

Conference abstracts of pain SRs are selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported.

Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts Published in Leading Neurosurgical Journals: A Research on Research Study

BACKGROUND

Systematic review (SR) abstracts are frequently relied upon to guide clinical decision-making. However, there is mounting evidence that the quality of abstract reporting in the medical literature is suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

To appraise SR abstract reporting quality in neurosurgical journals and identify factors associated with improved reporting.

METHODS

This study systematically surveyed SR abstracts published in 8 leading neurosurgical journals between 8 April 2007 and 21 August 2017. Abstracts were identified through a search of the MEDLINE database and their reporting quality was determined in duplicate using a tool derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) statement. All SR abstracts that provided comparison between treatment strategies were eligible for inclusion. Descriptive statistics were utilized to identify factors associated with improved reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 257 abstracts were included in the analysis, with a mean of 22.8 (±25.3) included studies. The overall quality of reporting in included abstracts was suboptimal, with a mean score of 53.05% (±11.18). Reporting scores were higher among abstracts published after the release of the PRISMA-A guidelines (M = 56.52; 21.74-73.91) compared with those published beforehand (M = 47.83; 8.70-69.57; U = 4346.00, z = -4.61, P < .001). Similarly, both word count (r = 0.338, P < .001) and journal impact factor (r = 0.199, P = .001) were associated with an improved reporting score.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the overall reporting quality of abstracts in leading neurosurgical journals requires improvement. Strengths include the large number abstracts assessed, and its weaknesses include the fact that only neurosurgery-specific journals were surveyed. We recommend that attention be turned toward strengthening abstract submission and peer-review processes.

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.

PRISMA for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology

An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand-alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician-scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision-making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers, and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high-quality abstracts within Endodontology. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Quality of abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals

AIM

To systematically evaluate the reporting quality of the abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry were searched in PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to December 2017. Selection of studies by title and abstract screening followed by full-text assessment was independently done by two reviewers. The quality of abstracts was assessed by PRISMA-Abstract checklist comprising of 12 items; one each for title and objective, three items for methods, three items for results, two items for discussion and two items for others. PRISMA-A median scores were calculated and compared with the article characteristics. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and multi-variate analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-Abstract score was 7.46 ± 1.19. None of the studies were of high quality (score 10-12), 20 were of moderate (score 7-9), and 4 were of low quality (score 1-6). Journals that adhered to PRISMA guidelines showed significantly higher quality (p < 0.05). No association was found between the quality and the number of authors, country, journals, year of publication, word count and focus of study.

CONCLUSION

Majority of abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals were of moderate quality. Adoption and adherence to PRISMA-Abstract checklist by the journal editors and authors will enhance the reporting quality of abstracts.

Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience

BACKGROUND

Reporting quality of systematic reviews' (SRs) abstracts is important because this is often the only information about a study that readers have. The aim of this study was to assess adherence of SR abstracts in the field of anesthesiology with the reporting checklist PRISMA extension for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) and to analyze to what extent will the use of PRISMA-A yield concordant ratings in two raters without prior experience with the checklist.

METHODS

We analyzed reporting quality of SRs with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of interventions published in the field of anesthesiology from 2012 to 2016 by using 12-item PRISMA-A checklist. After calibration exercise, two authors without prior experience with PRISMA-A scored the abstracts. Primary outcome was median adherence to PRISMA-A checklist. Secondary outcome was adherence to individual items of the checklist. We analyzed whether there was improvement in reporting of SR abstracts over time. Additionally, we analyzed discrepancies between the two raters in scoring individual PRISMA-A items.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 318 results, of which we included 244 SRs. Median adherence to PRISMA-A checklist was 42% (5 items of 12). The majority of analyzed SR abstracts (N = 148, 61%) had a total adherence score under 50%, and not a single one had adherence above 75%. Adherence to individual items was very variable, ranging from 0% for reporting SR funding, to 97% for interpreting SR findings. Overall adherence to PRISMA-A did not change over the analyzed 5 years before and after publication of PRISMA-A in 2013. Even after calibration exercise, discrepancies between the two raters were found in 275 (9.3%) out of 2928 analyzed PRISMA-A items. Cohen's Kappa was 0.807. In the item about the description of effect there were discrepancies in 59% of the abstracts between the raters.

CONCLUSION

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in the field of anesthesiology is suboptimal, and did not improve after publication of PRISMA-A checklist in 2013. We need stricter adherence to reporting checklists by authors, editors and peer-reviewers, and interventions that will help those stakeholders to improve reporting of systematic reviews. Some items of PRISMA-A checklist are difficult to score.

Requirements for trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in critical care journals: a meta-epidemiological study of journals' instructions for authors

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to investigate the policies of critical care journals with regard to guideline adoption and clinical trial registration to understand the extent to which journals use these mechanisms to improve reporting practices.

METHODS

The current study's sample comprised 37 critical care journals cataloged in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2015 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index critical care subcategory. A web-based data abstraction was performed to identify which journals required, recommended, or made no mention of 17 different reporting guidelines. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another's ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated by using STATA 13.

RESULTS

Of the 37 critical care journals, 15 (15/37, 40.5%) did not mention a single guideline within their instructions for authors, whereas the remaining 22 (22/37, 59.5%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research were not mentioned by any journals, whereas the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (26/37, 70.3%) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (17/37, 45.9%) were mentioned most often. Of the 37 critical care journals, 21 (21/37, 56.8%) did not mention trial or review registration, but the remaining 16 (16/37, 43.2%) mentioned at least one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by six (6/37, 16.2%) journals, whereas the WHO registry was mentioned by five (5/37, 13.5%). Sixteen (16/37, 43.2%) journals mentioned trial registration through a registry platform.

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of the journals in our sample did not mention a reporting guideline, and only a small percentage of journals required the registration of clinical trials as a condition for publication. Implementing these two mechanisms may limit bias, and their adoption should be considered by journal editors in critical care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000024081.

Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies

BACKGROUND

Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies.

METHOD

A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching.

RESULTS

Eight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process.

CONCLUSIONS

Eight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.

Developing, Conducting, and Publishing Appropriate Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Articles

The volume of medical literature is growing at a rate that renders decision-making difficult without specialized summary tools. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important research instruments used to condense and clarify a broad scope of information into manageable summaries. When used effectively, these reports can pool cumulative data across primary studies, formulate clinical guidelines, and guide future research endeavors. However, errors in study design can result in ineffective or misleading analyses. This article presents the appropriate uses for systematic review and meta-analysis by introducing a framework for creating summary studies, and supplying specific examples of pitfalls in study design and execution.

Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions

BACKGROUND

Article summaries' information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians' decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explored a method for determining the methodological quality and bias risk of full-text reviews using abstract information alone.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches for SRs and/or MA about psoriasis were undertaken on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. For each review, quality, abstract-reporting completeness, full-text methodological quality, and bias risk were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A), Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and ROBIS tools, respectively. Article-, author-, and journal-derived metadata were systematically extracted from eligible studies using a piloted template, and explanatory variables concerning abstract-reporting quality were assessed using univariate and multivariate-regression models. Two classification models concerning SRs' methodological quality and bias risk were developed based on per-item and total PRISMA-A scores and decision-tree algorithms. This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 (JR). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company.

RESULTS

This study analysed 139 SRs on psoriasis interventions. On average, they featured 56.7% of PRISMA-A items. The mean total PRISMA-A score was significantly higher for high-methodological-quality SRs than for moderate- and low-methodological-quality reviews. SRs with low-bias risk showed higher total PRISMA-A values than reviews with high-bias risk. In the final model, only 'authors per review > 6' (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), 'academic source of funding' (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and 'PRISMA-endorsed journal' (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score < 6, lacking identification as SR or MA in the title, and lacking explanation concerning bias risk assessment methods were classified as low-methodological quality. Abstracts with a total PRISMA-A score ≥ 9, including main outcomes results and explanation bias risk assessment method were classified as having low-bias risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality and bias risk of SRs may be determined by abstract's quality and completeness analyses. Our proposal aimed to facilitate synthesis of evidence evaluation by clinical professionals lacking methodological skills. External validation is necessary.

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The PRISMA Statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve transparency of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Seven extensions to the PRISMA Statement have been published to address the reporting of different types or aspects of SRs, and another eight are in development. We performed a scoping review to map the research that has been conducted to evaluate the uptake and impact of the PRISMA Statement and extensions. We also synthesised studies evaluating how well SRs published after the PRISMA Statement was disseminated adhere to its recommendations.

METHODS

We searched for meta-research studies indexed in MEDLINE® from inception to 31 July 2017, which investigated some component of the PRISMA Statement or extensions (e.g. SR adherence to PRISMA, journal endorsement of PRISMA). One author screened all records and classified the types of evidence available in the studies. We pooled data on SR adherence to individual PRISMA items across all SRs in the included studies and across SRs published after 2009 (the year PRISMA was disseminated).

RESULTS

We included 100 meta-research studies. The most common type of evidence available was data on SR adherence to the PRISMA Statement, which has been evaluated in 57 studies that have assessed 6487 SRs. The pooled results of these studies suggest that reporting of many items in the PRISMA Statement is suboptimal, even in the 2382 SRs published after 2009 (where nine items were adhered to by fewer than 67% of SRs). Few meta-research studies have evaluated the adherence of SRs to the PRISMA extensions or strategies to increase adherence to the PRISMA Statement and extensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Many studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result of these suggest that reporting of many items is suboptimal. An update of the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline, may improve the transparency of SRs.

Do emergency medicine journals promote trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines? A survey of "Instructions for Authors"

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the “Instructions for Authors” of emergency medicine journals.

Methods

We performed a web-based data abstraction from the “Instructions for Authors” of the 27 Emergency Medicine journals catalogued in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index to identify whether each journal required, recommended, or made no mention of the following reporting guidelines: EQUATOR Network, ICMJE, ARRIVE, CARE, CONSORT, STARD, TRIPOD, CHEERS, MOOSE, STROBE, COREQ, SRQR, SQUIRE, PRISMA-P, SPIRIT, PRISMA, and QUOROM. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another’s ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross-tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS 22.

Results

Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 11 (11/27, 40.7%) did not mention a single guideline within their “Instructions for Authors,” while the remaining 16 (16/27, 59.3%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The QUOROM statement and SRQR were not mentioned by any journals whereas the ICMJE guidelines (18/27, 66.7%) and CONSORT statement (15/27, 55.6%) were mentioned most often. Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 15 (15/27, 55.6%) did not mention trial or review registration, while the remaining 12 (12/27, 44.4%) at least mentioned one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by seven (7/27, 25.9%) journals while the WHO registry was mentioned by four (4/27, 14.8%). Twelve (12/27, 44.4%) journals mentioned trial registration through any registry platform.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the “Instructions for Authors” of emergency medicine journals. In this study, there was not a single reporting guideline mentioned in more than half of the journals. This undermines efforts of other journals to improve the completeness and transparency of research reporting.

Conclusions

Reporting guidelines are infrequently required or recommended by emergency medicine journals. Furthermore, few require clinical trial registration. These two mechanisms may limit bias and should be considered for adoption by journal editors in emergency medicine.

Trial registration

UMIN000022486

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-016-0331-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.