Abstract
Rationale and aim: Clear and logical eligibility criteria are fundamental to the design and conduct of a systematic review. This methodological review examined the quality of reporting and application of eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in three leading medical journals. Methods: All systematic reviews in the BMJ, JAMA and TheLancet in the years 2013 and 2014 were extracted. These were assessed using a refined version of a checklist previously designed by the authors. Results: A total of 113 papers were eligible, of which 65 were in BMJ, 17 in TheLancet and 31 in JAMA. Although a generally high level of reporting was found, eligibility criteria were often problematic. In 67% of papers, eligibility was specified after the search sources or terms. Unjustified time restrictions were used in 21% of reviews, and unpublished or unspecified data in 27%. Inconsistency between journals was apparent in the requirements for systematic reviews. Conclusions: The quality of reviews in these leading medical journals was high; however, there were issues that reduce the clarity and replicability of the review process. As well as providing a useful checklist, this methodological review informs the continued development of standards for systematic reviews.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1052–1058 |
| Journal | Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Early online date | 14 Sept 2015 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2015 |
Keywords
- Bias
- Eligibility criteria
- Meta-analysis
- Reporting
- Review
- Systematic review