Research output per year
Research output per year
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the reproducibility of biomedical systematic review search strategies.
Study Design and Setting: A cross-sectional reproducibility study was conducted on a random sample of 100 systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in November 2021. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of systematic reviews for which all database searches can be reproduced, operationalized as fulfilling six key Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S) reporting guideline items and having all database searches reproduced within 10% of the number of original results. Key reporting guideline items included database name, multi-database searching, full search strategies, limits and restrictions, date(s) of searches, and total records.
Results: The 100 systematic review articles contained 453 database searches. 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; six searches differed by more than 1,000% between the originally reported number of results and the reproduction. Only one systematic review article provided the necessary search details to be fully reproducible.
Conclusion: Systematic review search reporting is poor. To correct this will require a multifaceted response from authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and database providers.
Study Design and Setting: A cross-sectional reproducibility study was conducted on a random sample of 100 systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in November 2021. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of systematic reviews for which all database searches can be reproduced, operationalized as fulfilling six key Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S) reporting guideline items and having all database searches reproduced within 10% of the number of original results. Key reporting guideline items included database name, multi-database searching, full search strategies, limits and restrictions, date(s) of searches, and total records.
Results: The 100 systematic review articles contained 453 database searches. 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; six searches differed by more than 1,000% between the originally reported number of results and the reproduction. Only one systematic review article provided the necessary search details to be fully reproducible.
Conclusion: Systematic review search reporting is poor. To correct this will require a multifaceted response from authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and database providers.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 111229 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology |
| Volume | 166 |
| Early online date | 3 Dec 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Feb 2024 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional metaresearch study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Research output
- 1 Preprint
-
Systematic review search strategies are poorly described and not reproducible: a cross-sectional meta-research study
Rethlefsen, M., Brigham, T., Price, C., Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kirkham, J., Schroter, S. & Zeegers, M., 16 May 2023, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 21 p. (medRxiv).Research output: Preprint/Working paper › Preprint
Open AccessFile59 Downloads (Pure)