skip to main content
Idioma:
Primo Search
Clear Search Box
Search in: Búsqueda General
Búsqueda Avanzada
Búsqueda por Índices

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

Page, Matthew J ; Shamseer, Larissa ; Altman, Douglas G ; Tetzlaff, Jennifer ; Sampson, Margaret ; Tricco, Andrea C ; Catalá-López, Ferrán ; Li, Lun ; Reid, Emma K ; Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael ; Moher, David Low, Nicola

PLoS medicine, 2016-05, Vol.13 (5), p.e1002028-e1002028 [Revista revisada por pares]

United States: Public Library of Science

Texto completo disponible

Citas Citado por
  • Título:
    Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study
  • Autor: Page, Matthew J ; Shamseer, Larissa ; Altman, Douglas G ; Tetzlaff, Jennifer ; Sampson, Margaret ; Tricco, Andrea C ; Catalá-López, Ferrán ; Li, Lun ; Reid, Emma K ; Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael ; Moher, David
  • Low, Nicola
  • Materias: Analysis ; Bias ; Bibliographic data bases ; Biomedical research ; Biomedical Research - statistics & numerical data ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Epidemiologic Methods ; Epidemiology ; Funding ; Humans ; Medical research ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Medicine, Experimental ; Physical Sciences ; Quality ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Research Design ; Researchers ; Review Literature as Topic ; Science publishing ; Studies
  • Es parte de: PLoS medicine, 2016-05, Vol.13 (5), p.e1002028-e1002028
  • Notas: ObjectType-Article-1
    SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
    ObjectType-Feature-2
    content type line 23
    Conceived and designed the experiments: MJP LS DM. Performed the experiments: MJP LS JT FCL LL EKR RSO. Analyzed the data: MJP. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: MJP. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: MJP LS DGA JT MS ACT FCL LL EKR RSO DM. Agree with the manuscript’s results and conclusions: MJP LS DGA JT MS ACT FCL LL EKR RSO DM. All authors have read, and confirm that they meet, ICMJE criteria for authorship.
    I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: MJP is a research fellow for the Australasian Cochrane Centre. ACT and FCL are authors of three of the systematic reviews included in this study, but were not involved in eligibility assessment or data extraction. DM is a member of PLOS Medicine’s editorial board.
  • Descripción: Systematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs. We searched MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014. Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria. Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate. We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews, and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs. We identified 682 SRs, suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade. The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China, the UK, or the US; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants. Meta-analysis was performed in 63% of SRs, mostly using standard pairwise methods. Study risk of bias/quality assessment was performed in 70% of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis (16%). Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs. Reporting quality was highly variable; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol, eligibility criteria relating to publication status, years of coverage of the search, a full Boolean search logic for at least one database, methods for data extraction, methods for study risk of bias assessment, a primary outcome, an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations, or the funding source of the SR. Cochrane SRs, which accounted for 15% of the sample, had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs. Reporting has generally improved since 2004, but remains suboptimal for many characteristics. An increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research.
  • Editor: United States: Public Library of Science
  • Idioma: Inglés
Enlaces
Volver a la lista de resultados
Ir a la página anteriorAnterior Resultado  10 SiguienteIr a la siguiente página

  • Realización: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociales: Freepik

Buscando en bases de datos remotas, por favor espere

  • Buscando por
  • enscope:(USP_PRODUCAO),scope:(USP_EBOOKS),scope:("PRIMO"),scope:(USP),scope:(USP_EREVISTAS),scope:(USP_FISICO),primo_central_multiple_fe
  • Mostrar lo que tiene hasta ahora