ReviewJAAD international2020
Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review.
Review in JAAD international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Machine Learning applied to the Prediction of Obesity and Overweight.Journal of medical systems · 2023Pooled it
- Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is of critical importance in dermatology because of their key role in informing health care decisions.
objectiveTo assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines.
methodsThis review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Included studies were reviews published across 6 years in the top 4 highest-impact-factor dermatology journals of 2017. Records and full texts were screened independently. Data analysis was conducted with univariate multivariable linear regression. The primary outcome was to assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement.
resultsA total of 166 studies were included and mean PRISMA compliance across all articles was 73%. Compliance significantly improved over time (β = .016;
conclusionPRISMA compliance within leading dermatology journals could be improved; however, it is steadily improving.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.