Category | Element of definition | N (%) |
---|---|---|
Self-identified as a systematic review | Manuscript that identifies itself as a systematic review in title, abstract or in methods | 30 (13) |
Indexing | Indexed as SR | 1 (0.4) |
Aim/research question | Specific research question | 66 (29) |
Clearly stated set of objectives | 12 (5.3) | |
Clearly formulated research question | 11 (4.8) | |
Focused research question | 3 (1.3) | |
Reported research question | 2 (0.9) | |
Clinical question including participants, interventions, controls, outcomes and study design (PICOS) | 2 (0.9) | |
Explicit clinical question | 1 (0.4) | |
Clearly stated topic of review | 1 (0.4) | |
Explicitly reported pre-defined objectives | 1 (0.4) | |
Stated goal implied a critical and comprehensive intent | 1 (0.4) | |
Clear statement of the topic | 1 (0.4) | |
Defined clinical topic | 1 (0.4) | |
Explicit statement of questions being addressed | 1 (0.4) | |
Overall methods | Systematic methods | 22 (9.7) |
Explicit methods | 21 (9.2) | |
Systematic method to minimize risk of bias | 9 (4) | |
Systematic approach, in an attempt to minimize biases and random errors, documented in the Materials and Methods section | 8 (3.5) | |
Explicit method to minimize risk of bias | 7 (3.1) | |
Reproducible methods | 5 (2.2) | |
Using a systematic approach | 5 (2.2) | |
Methods described in explicit detail | 4 (1.8) | |
Well-defined methods | 2 (0.9) | |
Overall methods defined study as systematic review | 1 (0.4) | |
Overall Conduct defined study as a systematic review | 1 (0.4) | |
Systematic review methodology on closer inspection of the methods section | 1 (0.4) | |
Specific methods | 1 (0.4) | |
Repeatable methods | 1 (0.4) | |
Rigorous methods | 1 (0.4) | |
Different components of the review process documented in the ‘methods section’ | 1 (0.4) | |
Using methods to provide more reliable findings | 1 (0.4) | |
Using methods from which conclusions can be drawn | 1 (0.4) | |
Using methods based on which decisions can be made | 1 (0.4) | |
Exhaustive review of the literature | 1 (0.4) | |
Systematic approach | 1 (0.4) | |
Search | Systematic search | 29 (13) |
Reported search strategy | 13 (5.8) | |
Comprehensive search strategy | 12 (5.3) | |
Searched at least two databases/sources | 10 (4.4) | |
Exact search criteria reported | 9 (4.0) | |
Searched at least one database | 9 (3.9) | |
Reported search methods | 7 (3.1) | |
Attempt to collate all empirical evidence | 7 (3.1) | |
Reported all information sources | 6 (2.6) | |
Transparent search strategy | 6 (2.6) | |
Detailed and comprehensive search strategy (as identified by: naming of databases and years of searching and example or actual terms) | 4 (1.8) | |
Detailed and specific search strategy with key-words that enabled reproduction of the literature search | 4 (1.8) | |
Names of databases reported | 4 (1.8) | |
Explicit search criteria that are available to review | 3 (1.3) | |
Description of data sources and search dates | 2 (0.4) | |
Keywords searched | 2 (0.9) | |
Detailed search of the literature for relevant studies | 2 (0.9) | |
Explicit description of search strategy | 2 (0.9) | |
Adequate searching methods | 2 (0.9) | |
Replicable search method | 2 (0.9) | |
Reported search sources | 1 (0.4) | |
Description of sources | 1 (0.4) | |
Reported details of databases searched | 1 (0.4) | |
Reported dates of search | 1 (0.4) | |
Included relevant search strategy | 1 (0.4) | |
Adequate search strategy | 1 (0.4) | |
Appropriate search strategy | 1 (0.4) | |
Detailed search strategy | 1 (0.4) | |
Non-selective search strategy | 1 (0.4) | |
Explicit search strategy | 1 (0.4) | |
Prescriptive search strategy | 1 (0.4) | |
Reproducible search strategy | 1 (0.4) | |
Rigorous search process | 1 (0.4) | |
Explicitly reported search strategy details | 1 (0.4) | |
Thorough search of evidence | 1 (0.4) | |
Comprehensive search of evidence | 1 (0.4) | |
Reported search processes | 1 (0.4) | |
Extensive use of search string combinations | 1 (0.4) | |
Description of evidence retrieval methods | 1 (0.4) | |
Explicit and organized approach to searching | 1 (0.4) | |
Attempt to search all empirical evidence | 1 (0.4) | |
Adequately attempt to retrieve all relevant data | 1 (0.4) | |
Review trying to collect all available evidence | 1 (0.4) | |
Structured search of bibliographic and other databases | 1 (0.4) | |
Searched at least Medline | 1 (0.4) | |
Searched at least two databases (of which one is Medline) | 1 (0.4) | |
Identification of studies | Explicit methods to identify relevant research | 14 (6.2) |
Systematic methods of identification of studies | 10 (4.4) | |
Attempt to identify all empirical evidence | 6 (2.6) | |
Reported methods for identification of studies | 2 (0.9) | |
Transparent procedure to find relevant research | 2 (0.9) | |
Formal process of identifying literature | 1 (0.4) | |
Selection of studies | Explicit methods to select relevant research | 14 (6.2) |
Systematic methods of selection of studies | 13 (5.8) | |
Reported methods for selection of studies | 6 (2.6) | |
Transparent selection of studies | 2 (0.9) | |
Reproducible selection of studies | 4 (1.8) | |
Reproducible approach for selecting the studies | 1 (0.4) | |
Clear description of selection criteria | 1 (0.4) | |
Clear study selection criteria | 1 (0.4) | |
Relevant study selection criteria | 1 (0.4) | |
Detailed description of the studies’ selection process (number of articles included and excluded in each step) | 1 (0.4) | |
Study eligibility | Reported inclusion and exclusion criteria | 31 (14) |
Pre-defined/pre-specified eligibility criteria | 20 (8.8) | |
Outcome defined using a validated tool or diagnostic criteria | 13 (5.8) | |
Only Cochrane systematic reviews | 12 (5.3) | |
Reported inclusion criteria | 6 (2.6) | |
Explicitly reported inclusion and exclusion criteria | 6 (2.6) | |
Articles that meet PRISMA definition of a systematic review | 5 (2.2) | |
Definitions of the population(s), intervention(s), comparator(s) and outcome(s) of interest | 2 (0.9) | |
Inclusion/exclusion criteria that are relevant in terms of the PICO framework | 3 (1.3) | |
Reviews published in Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) | 2 (0.9) | |
Reviews were judged to be systematic if they synthesized peer reviewed articles | 1 (0.4) | |
Studies meeting minimum methodological standards | 1 (0.4) | |
Reference to study designs | 1 (0.4) | |
Data extraction | Systematic data collection | 12 (5.3) |
Systematic methods to extract data | 4 (1.8) | |
Explicit methods to collect data | 3 (1.3) | |
Data extraction by 2 independent reviewers | 2 (0.9) | |
Reported data abstraction from trials | 2 (0.9) | |
Independent data extraction | 1 (0.4) | |
Explicit approach to extracting | 1 (0.4) | |
Organized approach to extracting | 1 (0.4) | |
Explicit methods to extract data | 1 (0.4) | |
Performed data extraction | 1 (0.4) | |
Extracting the information from the studies following a priori protocol | 1 (0.4) | |
Quality, bias, appraisal, validity | Quality assessment of evidence | 27 (12) |
Critical appraisal of the studies | 25 (11) | |
Risk of bias assessment | 19 (8.4) | |
Systematic methods to critically appraise relevant research | 13 (5.8) | |
Explicit methods to critically appraise relevant research | 13 (5.8) | |
Reported validity assessment | 11 (4.9) | |
Attempt to appraise all empirical evidence | 6 (2.6) | |
Full assessment of methodological quality of included studies | 5 (2.2) | |
Consideration of internal and external validity of the research | 3 (1.3) | |
Provided sufficient details about individual included studies to enable assessment of quality by a reader | 2 (0.9) | |
Reported at least one or more aspects of validity assessment of original studies | 2 (0.9) | |
Transparent procedures to evaluate relevant research | 2 (0.9) | |
Full report of methodological quality of included studies | 1 (0.4) | |
Transparent process to minimize risk of bias | 1 (0.4) | |
Explicit approach to critically evaluating studies | 1 (0.4) | |
Organized approach to critically evaluating empirical literature | 1 (0.4) | |
Systematic approach for assessing the studies | 1 (0.4) | |
Reproducible approach for assessing the studies | 1 (0.4) | |
Assessed methodological features of the included studies | 1 (0.4) | |
Adequate methods to appraise included studies | 1 (0.4) | |
Transparent methodological criteria are used to exclude papers that do not meet an explicit methodological benchmark | 1 (0.4) | |
Evaluate the retrieved studies using prospectively defined methodological criteria | 1 (0.4) | |
Analysis, synthesis | Synthesis of results | 34 (15) |
Presence of meta-analysis | 19 (10) | |
Systematic methods of analysis of studies | 18 (8.0) | |
Explicit methods to analyze data | 17 (7.5) | |
Systematic synthesis of findings | 10 (4.4) | |
Quantitative synthesis | 9 (4.0) | |
Synthesis of the included evidence, whether narrative or quantitative | 7 (3.1) | |
Attempt to synthesize all empirical evidence | 6 (2.6) | |
Systematic analysis of results | 2 (0.9) | |
Unbiased synthesis of study findings | 2 (0.9) | |
Transparent procedures to synthesize the results of relevant research | 2 (0.9) | |
Analyze results appropriately | 1 (0.4) | |
Systematic analysis | 1 (0.4) | |
Plausible analysis of data | 1 (0.4) | |
Plausible synthesis of data | 1 (0.4) | |
Summary of results | 1 (0.4) | |
Systematic analysis | 1 (0.4) | |
Meta-analysis or best evidence synthesis | 1 (0.4) | |
Formal analysis contained in the methods | 1 (0.4) | |
Makes judgement about research question | 1 (0.4) | |
Relying on statistical significance to make judgments about what works | 1 (0.4) | |
Transparent process of interpretation of the findings of the studies included in the review | 1 (0.4) | |
Rigorous conclusions about outcomes | 1 (0.4) | |
Describing included studies | Systematic presentation of characteristics of included studies | 4 (1.8) |
Systematic synthesis of characteristics of included studies | 4 (1.8) | |
Clearly identified all included studies | 2 (0.9) | |
Reported trial characteristics | 1 (0.4) | |
Systematic presentation of main information | 1 (0.4) | |
Described main characteristics of included studies | 1 (0.4) | |
Adequate methods to describe included studies | 1 (0.4) | |
Description of the number and nature of included studies | 1 (0.4) | |
Description of the types of primary studies included | 1 (0.4) | |
Accounted for identified studies | 1 (0.4) | |
Reporting | Used PRISMA or predecessor guidelines for reporting | 3 (2) |
Presented results appropriately | 1 (0.4) | |
Systematic presentation of findings | 1 (0.4) | |
Flow chart present | 1 (0.4) | |
Reported level of evidence for their recommendations | 1 (0.4) | |
Reported sufficient information to allow a level of evidence grading | 1 (0.4) | |
Published in a journal conforming to PRISMA standards | 1 (0.4) | |
A review that has methods and results section | 1 (0.4) | |
Unclear | “It was apparent in the text that a systematic review had been undertaken” | 4 (1.8) |
“Reviews were included if they were systematic” | 1 (0.4) |