Abstract
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.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- MEDLINE, PubMed and PMC (PubMed central) - how are they different?.National Library of Medicine, 2022 (Available at)https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/difference.htmlDate accessed: June 16, 2022
- Understanding PubMed user search behavior through log analysis.Database (Oxford). 2009; 2009: bap018
- The systematic review: an overview.Am J Nurs. 2014; 114: 53-58
- Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019.J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 138: 1-11
- The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Milbank Q. 2016; 94: 485-514
- Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study.PLoS Med. 2016; 13: 1-30
- Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.PLoS Med. 2007; 4: 447-455
- Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews.JAMA. 2011; 306: 1981-1982
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.BMJ. 2009; 339: 332-336
- PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts.PLoS Med. 2013; 10: e1001419
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.PLoS Med. 2021; 18: 1-15
- Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19: 1-8
- Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts published in leading neurosurgical journals: a research on research study.Neurosurgery. 2019; 85: 1-10
- 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.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021; 21: 1-12
- Factors associated with the reporting quality of low back pain systematic review abstracts in physical therapy: a methodological study.Braz J Phys Ther. 2021; 25: 233-241
- Systematic reviews in orthodontics: impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019; 156: 442-452.e12
- Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19: 32
- 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.Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2020; 17: 108-117
- 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-an.Syst Rev. 2016; 5: 1-9
- Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in operative dentistry: an assessment using the PRISMA for Abstracts guidelines.J Dentistry. 2020; 102: 103471
- Quality and clarity in systematic review abstracts: an empirical study.Res Synth Methods. 2016; 7: 447-458
- Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey.Br Med J. 2005; 330: 68-71
- Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.Syst Rev. 2015; 4: 148-160
- Higgins J.P.T. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cumpston M. Li T. Page M.J. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane,
2022 (Available at)www.training.cochrane.org/handbookDate accessed: June 18, 2022
- Chapter III: reporting the review.in: Higgins J.P.T. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cumpston M. Li T. Page M.J. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022 (Available at)www.training.cochrane.org/handbookDate accessed: June 18, 2022
- Retrieving Cochrane reviews is sometimes challenging and their reporting is not always optimal.Res Synth Methods. 2022; 13: 554-557
- Chapter 11: presenting results and ‘Summary of findings’ tables.in: Higgins J.P.T. Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 510 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 (Available at)http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/Date accessed: June 22, 2022
- CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration.PLoS Med. 2008; 5: e20
- Did an introduction of CONSORT for abstracts guidelines improve reporting quality of randomised controlled trials’ abstracts on Helicobacter pylori infection? Observational study.BMJ Open. 2022; 12: e054978
- Evaluation of reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials regarding patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement for abstracts.Int J Infect Dis. 2022; 116: 122-129
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 27, 2022
Accepted:
December 21,
2022
Footnotes
Author contributions: J.H., F.H., D.P., and K.A. designed the study. J.H. screened and extracted the data. F.H., D.P., and K.A. verified the data. J.H. and K.A. analysed and interpreted the data and wrote the first version of the manuscript. All authors have critically revised the article and have read and approved the final version of the article to be submitted.
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
