Reporting quality of systematic reviews published from 2011 to 2024 in the

Purpose: This study evaluated the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Methods: A methodological review was conducted using articles retrieved from the JKBNS archive. The literature search was performed between October 7 and October 24, 2025. Two reviewers independently screened all records, and reporting quality was assessed using the 27 PRISMA items and 42 associated sub-items, which were scored as fully reported (1), partially reported (0.5), or not reported (0). Compliance rates were calculated, and PRISMA items were mapped to corresponding AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS domains. Results: Twenty SRs and meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. The mean score across PRISMA sub-items was 23.58 ± 7.34 (range, 15~38). Ten sub-items-including rationale, objectives, information sources, search strategy, data collection, study selection and exclusion, study characteristics, and key discussion elements-were consistently reported. In contrast, protocol registration, protocol access, and sensitivity analyses were rarely reported, while certainty assessment, certainty of evidence, and protocol amendments were not reported in any study. Overall adherence to the 27 PRISMA items was 64.7 ± 14.9% (range, 44.4~92.6). Conclusion: Conceptual mapping demonstrated strong alignment between PRISMA methodology and results items and the domains of AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS; however, transparency-focused components newly introduced in PRISMA 2020 showed limited correspondence. These findings provide practical guidance for improving reporting transparency in future SRs published in JKBNS.