TY - JOUR
T1 - Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations
T2 - a metaresearch study
AU - Buitrago-Garcia, Diana
AU - Robles-Rodriguez, William Gildardo
AU - Eslava-Schmalbach, Javier
AU - Salanti, Georgia
AU - Low, Nicola
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors
PY - 2024/10
Y1 - 2024/10
N2 - Objectives: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009, has been widely endorsed and compliance is high in systematic reviews (SRs) of intervention studies. SRs of prevalence studies are increasing in frequency, but their characteristics and reporting quality have not been examined in large studies. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of SRs of prevalence studies in adults, evaluate the completeness of reporting, and explore study-level characteristics associated with the completeness of reporting. Study Design and Setting: We did a metaresearch study. We searched 5 databases from January 2010 to December 2020 to identify SRs of prevalence studies in adult populations. We used the PRISMA 2009 checklist to assess completeness of reporting and recorded additional characteristics. We conducted a descriptive analysis of review characteristics and linear regression to assess the relationship between compliance with PRISMA and publication characteristics. Results: We included 1172 SRs of prevalence studies. The number of reviews increased from 25 in 2010 to 273 in 2020. The median PRISMA score for SRs without meta-analysis was 17.5 of a maximum of 23, and for SRs with meta-analysis, 22 of a maximum of 25. Completeness of reporting, particularly for key items in the methods section, was suboptimal. SRs that included a meta-analysis or reported using a reporting or conduct guideline were the factors most strongly associated with increased compliance with PRISMA 2009. Conclusion: Reporting of SRs of prevalence was adequate for many PRISMA items. Nonetheless, this study highlights aspects for which special attention is needed. Development of a specific tool to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies and an extension to the PRISMA statement could improve the conduct and reporting of SRs of prevalence studies.
AB - Objectives: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009, has been widely endorsed and compliance is high in systematic reviews (SRs) of intervention studies. SRs of prevalence studies are increasing in frequency, but their characteristics and reporting quality have not been examined in large studies. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of SRs of prevalence studies in adults, evaluate the completeness of reporting, and explore study-level characteristics associated with the completeness of reporting. Study Design and Setting: We did a metaresearch study. We searched 5 databases from January 2010 to December 2020 to identify SRs of prevalence studies in adult populations. We used the PRISMA 2009 checklist to assess completeness of reporting and recorded additional characteristics. We conducted a descriptive analysis of review characteristics and linear regression to assess the relationship between compliance with PRISMA and publication characteristics. Results: We included 1172 SRs of prevalence studies. The number of reviews increased from 25 in 2010 to 273 in 2020. The median PRISMA score for SRs without meta-analysis was 17.5 of a maximum of 23, and for SRs with meta-analysis, 22 of a maximum of 25. Completeness of reporting, particularly for key items in the methods section, was suboptimal. SRs that included a meta-analysis or reported using a reporting or conduct guideline were the factors most strongly associated with increased compliance with PRISMA 2009. Conclusion: Reporting of SRs of prevalence was adequate for many PRISMA items. Nonetheless, this study highlights aspects for which special attention is needed. Development of a specific tool to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies and an extension to the PRISMA statement could improve the conduct and reporting of SRs of prevalence studies.
KW - Adults
KW - Metaresearch
KW - Prevalence
KW - Reporting
KW - Risk of bias
KW - Systematic reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85202662296&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111489
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111489
M3 - Artículo
C2 - 39089422
AN - SCOPUS:85202662296
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 174
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
M1 - 111489
ER -