Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36414269›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022

Changing patterns in reporting and sharing of review data in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of interventions: cross sectional meta-research study.

Phi-Yen Nguyen, Raju Kanukula, Joanne E McKenzie, Zainab Alqaidoom, Sue E Brennan, Neal R Haddaway, Daniel G Hamilton, Sathya Karunananthan, Steve McDonald, David Moher and 5 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Phi-Yen NguyenMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0476-3385
Raju KanukulaMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0793-786X
Joanne E McKenzieMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3534-1641
Zainab AlqaidoomMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5880-3792
Sue E BrennanMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1789-8809
Neal R HaddawayLeibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Müncheberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3902-2234
Daniel G HamiltonSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8104-474X
Sathya KarunananthanInterdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4247-4752
Steve McDonaldMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2832-5205
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Programme, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206
Shinichi NakagawaEvolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7765-5182
David NunanCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4597-1276
Peter TugwellBruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5062-0556
Vivian A WelchBruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5238-7097
Matthew J PageMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4242-7526

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine changes in completeness of reporting and frequency of sharing data, analytical code, and other review materials in systematic reviews over time; and factors associated with these changes.

designCross sectional meta-research study. POPULATION: Random sample of 300 systematic reviews with meta-analysis of aggregate data on the effects of a health, social, behavioural, or educational intervention. Reviews were indexed in PubMed, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, and Education Collection in November 2020.

main outcome measuresThe extent of complete reporting and the frequency of sharing review materials in the systematic reviews indexed in 2020 were compared with 110 systematic reviews indexed in February 2014. Associations between completeness of reporting and various factors (eg, self-reported use of reporting guidelines, journal policies on data sharing) were examined by calculating risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

resultsSeveral items were reported suboptimally among 300 systematic reviews from 2020, such as a registration record for the review (n=113; 38%), a full search strategy for at least one database (n=214; 71%), methods used to assess risk of bias (n=185; 62%), methods used to prepare data for meta-analysis (n=101; 34%), and source of funding for the review (n=215; 72%). Only a few items not already reported at a high frequency in 2014 were reported more frequently in 2020. No evidence indicated that reviews using a reporting guideline were more completely reported than reviews not using a guideline. Reviews published in 2020 in journals that mandated either data sharing or inclusion of data availability statements were more likely to share their review materials (eg, data, code files) than reviews in journals without such mandates (16/87 (18%)

conclusionIncomplete reporting of several recommended items for systematic reviews persists, even in reviews that claim to have followed a reporting guideline. Journal policies on data sharing might encourage sharing of review materials.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationResearch DesignCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPubMedSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID36414269
PMCPMC9679891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.