Research output per year
Research output per year
Abstract
Objective To determine the reproducibility of biomedical systematic review search strategies.
Design Cross-sectional meta-research study.
Population Random sample of 100 systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in November 2021.
Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome measure is the percentage of systematic reviews for which all database searches can be reproduced. This was operationalized as fulfilling six key PRISMA-S reporting guideline items (database name, multi-database searching, full search strategies, limits and restrictions, date(s) of searches, and total records) and having all database searches reproduced within 10% of the number of original results.
Results The 100 systematic review articles contained 453 database searches. Of those, 214 (47.2%) provided complete database information (named the database and platform; PRISMA-S item 1). Only 22 (4.9%) database searches reported all six PRISMA-S items. Forty-seven (10.4%) database searches could be reproduced within 10% of the number of results from the original search; 6 searches differed by more than 1000% between the originally reported number of results and the reproduction. Only one systematic review article provided the necessary details for all database searches to be fully reproducible.
Conclusion Systematic review search reporting is poor. As systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines based upon them continue to proliferate, so does research waste. To correct this will require a multi-faceted response from systematic review authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and database providers.
Design Cross-sectional meta-research study.
Population Random sample of 100 systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in November 2021.
Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome measure is the percentage of systematic reviews for which all database searches can be reproduced. This was operationalized as fulfilling six key PRISMA-S reporting guideline items (database name, multi-database searching, full search strategies, limits and restrictions, date(s) of searches, and total records) and having all database searches reproduced within 10% of the number of original results.
Results The 100 systematic review articles contained 453 database searches. Of those, 214 (47.2%) provided complete database information (named the database and platform; PRISMA-S item 1). Only 22 (4.9%) database searches reported all six PRISMA-S items. Forty-seven (10.4%) database searches could be reproduced within 10% of the number of results from the original search; 6 searches differed by more than 1000% between the originally reported number of results and the reproduction. Only one systematic review article provided the necessary details for all database searches to be fully reproducible.
Conclusion Systematic review search reporting is poor. As systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines based upon them continue to proliferate, so does research waste. To correct this will require a multi-faceted response from systematic review authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and database providers.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publisher | Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 16 May 2023 |
Publication series
| Name | medRxiv |
|---|---|
| Publisher | Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Systematic review search strategies are poorly described and not reproducible: a cross-sectional meta-research study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Research output
- 1 Article
-
Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional metaresearch study
Rethlefsen, M., Brigham, T., Price, C., Moher, D., Bouter, L. M., Kirkham, J., Schroter, S. & Zeegers, M. P., 1 Feb 2024, In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 166, 12 p., 111229.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Open AccessFile29 Downloads (Pure)