Article type
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered the highest level in the hierarchy of evidence in evidence-based medicine. In recent years, the number of published SRs hugely increased. However, there may be papers labeled as SRs that are not SRs, and this may create confusion in clinicians and researchers.
Objectives: To assess whether papers labeled as "systematic review" fit a novel definition of SR
Methods: This is a cross-sectional meta-research study. PubMed will be searched in December 2023 to retrieve papers published in English and labeled as "systematic review" in the title and/or in the abstract. Records will be randomly ordered and screened until a sample of 100 papers is included, due to feasibility. Papers describing their study design as "systematic review" and aiming at assessing the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, irrespective of selection criteria (eg, population, intervention) and analysis method (eg, narrative synthesis, pairwise or network meta-analysis), will be included; papers with different aims (eg, prognostic, diagnostic, economical evaluation), overviews of SRs, scoping reviews, and meta-research/meta-epidemiological studies will be excluded. Each paper will be assessed based on whether it reports/includes all the criteria according to the template definition of SRs suggested by Krnic Martinic et al (2019) (Table 1). In case all the elements have been reported/included, the paper will be considered fitting the definition; otherwise, missing criteria will be recorded.
Reporting quality will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist (and relevant extensions). All steps will be performed by 2 authors independently, blinded to each other's decisions.
Proportion of papers fitting the definition and the missing criteria for papers not fitting will be reported. Correlation between general characteristics (eg, journal field, impact factor, open access, international collaboration, number of authors, prospective registration, funding, adherence to reporting guidelines), reporting of each PRISMA item, and appropriate use of the "systematic review" label will be sought.
Results: Results will be presented during the Global Evidence Summit.
Relevance for patients: Identifying "real" SRs will help recognize evidence to be used in informing clinical practice guidelines and in clinical decision-making to address patients' needs.
Public and/or consumer involvement: Not applicable
Objectives: To assess whether papers labeled as "systematic review" fit a novel definition of SR
Methods: This is a cross-sectional meta-research study. PubMed will be searched in December 2023 to retrieve papers published in English and labeled as "systematic review" in the title and/or in the abstract. Records will be randomly ordered and screened until a sample of 100 papers is included, due to feasibility. Papers describing their study design as "systematic review" and aiming at assessing the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, irrespective of selection criteria (eg, population, intervention) and analysis method (eg, narrative synthesis, pairwise or network meta-analysis), will be included; papers with different aims (eg, prognostic, diagnostic, economical evaluation), overviews of SRs, scoping reviews, and meta-research/meta-epidemiological studies will be excluded. Each paper will be assessed based on whether it reports/includes all the criteria according to the template definition of SRs suggested by Krnic Martinic et al (2019) (Table 1). In case all the elements have been reported/included, the paper will be considered fitting the definition; otherwise, missing criteria will be recorded.
Reporting quality will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist (and relevant extensions). All steps will be performed by 2 authors independently, blinded to each other's decisions.
Proportion of papers fitting the definition and the missing criteria for papers not fitting will be reported. Correlation between general characteristics (eg, journal field, impact factor, open access, international collaboration, number of authors, prospective registration, funding, adherence to reporting guidelines), reporting of each PRISMA item, and appropriate use of the "systematic review" label will be sought.
Results: Results will be presented during the Global Evidence Summit.
Relevance for patients: Identifying "real" SRs will help recognize evidence to be used in informing clinical practice guidelines and in clinical decision-making to address patients' needs.
Public and/or consumer involvement: Not applicable