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

Bias Humans PubMed Research Design Research Report Systematic Reviews as Topic
Cochrane reviews Effectiveness Methodological quality Reporting quality Restriction Systematic reviews

Journal

BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 08 2022
Historique:
received: 26 01 2022
accepted: 12 08 2022
entrez: 20 8 2022
pubmed: 21 8 2022
medline: 24 8 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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

Sections du résumé

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

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01710-w PMID: 35987985 PMC: PMC9392276
pubmed: 35987985
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01710-w
pii: 10.1186/s12874-022-01710-w
pmc: PMC9392276
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Observational Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

230

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Can Med Assoc J. 1979 Nov 3;121(9):1193-254
pubmed: 115569
JAAD Int. 2020 Sep 07;1(2):157-174
pubmed: 34409336
PLoS Med. 2007 Mar 27;4(3):e78
pubmed: 17388659
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Apr;132:146-147
pubmed: 33383129
Control Clin Trials. 1998 Apr;19(2):159-66
pubmed: 9551280
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;118:42-54
pubmed: 31698064
Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 19;6(1):263
pubmed: 29258593
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 7;7(2):e013905
pubmed: 28174224
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Feb;106:10-17
pubmed: 30312657
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012 Apr;28(2):138-44
pubmed: 22559755
BMJ. 2005 Jan 8;330(7482):68
pubmed: 15619601
Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):115-23
pubmed: 11914306
J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 Jan;97(1):21-9
pubmed: 19158999
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jan 10;18(1):5
pubmed: 29316881
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Aug;58(8):769-76
pubmed: 16086467
Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485-514
pubmed: 27620683
PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028
pubmed: 27218655
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 25;8(3):e020869
pubmed: 29581210
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 May;133:165-167
pubmed: 33571633
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Apr;35(2):244-8
pubmed: 22510325
Res Synth Methods. 2013 Mar;4(1):49-62
pubmed: 26053539
Lancet. 1999 Nov 27;354(9193):1896-900
pubmed: 10584742
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Oct;138:1-11
pubmed: 34091022
Am J Nurs. 2014 Mar;114(3):53-8
pubmed: 24572533
PLoS Med. 2021 Mar 29;18(3):e1003583
pubmed: 33780438
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:225-34
pubmed: 26092286
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27611
pubmed: 22110690
Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):515-9
pubmed: 27620684
Res Synth Methods. 2022 May 18;:
pubmed: 35583946
Lancet. 1997 Aug 2;350(9074):326-9
pubmed: 9251637
Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 19;6(1):131
pubmed: 28720117
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:127-134
pubmed: 30951800
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 23;7(1):129
pubmed: 30139391
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1021-30
pubmed: 19282144

Auteurs

Jasmin Helbach (J)

Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl Von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany. jasmin.helbach@uni-oldenburg.de.

Dawid Pieper (D)

Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Rüdersdorf, Germany.
Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Rüdersdorf, Germany.

Tim Mathes (T)

Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Institute for Medical Statistics, University Medical Centre Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.

Tanja Rombey (T)

Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Department of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Hajo Zeeb (H)

Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

Katharina Allers (K)

Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl Von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.

Falk Hoffmann (F)

Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl Von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Facteurs épidémiologiques › Biais (épidémiologie) › Restrictions and their reporting in systematic...
questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › Restrictions and their reporting in systematic...
questionsmedicales.fr › Sciences de l'information › Mémorisation et recherche des informations › Bases de données comme sujet › Bases de données bibliographiques › PubMed › Restrictions and their reporting in systematic...
questionsmedicales.fr › Disciplines des sciences naturelles › Science › Recherche › Plan de recherche › Restrictions and their reporting in systematic...
questionsmedicales.fr › Sciences de l'information › Langage › Arts du langage › Écriture › Rapport de recherche › Restrictions and their reporting in systematic...
questionsmedicales.fr › Sciences de l'information › Sources d'information › Moyens de communication › Publications › Littérature de revue comme sujet › Revues systématiques comme sujet › Restrictions and their reporting in systematic...