Die Zahl der publizierten systematischen Reviews (SRs) nimmt kontinuierlich zu. Dadurch steigt die Relevanz gut geschriebener Abstracts, denn sie bieten einen schnellen Überblick über das methodische Vorgehen und die wichtigsten Forschungsergebnisse. Zudem hängt die Entscheidung, einen Artikel im Volltext zu lesen, maßgeblich von den im Titel und Abstract präsentierten Informationen ab. Um die Qualität von Abstracts SRs zu verbessern, wurde 2013 die PRISMA-Checkliste für Abstracts (PRISMA-A) entwickelt und 2020 aktualisiert. Die in diese Dissertation eingeschlossenen Studien zeigen, dass die meisten Abstracts von SRs nicht vollständig nach PRISMA-A berichtet sind. Um informative Abstracts zu schreiben, benötigen Autor*innen SRs einen gewissen Rahmen an Wörtern. Dabei scheinen 250-300 Wörter ausreichend zu sein. Reporting-Leitlinien wie PRISMA-A sollten diese Länge entsprechend empfehlen, und Journals sollten sie unabhängig vom Studiendesign in ihre Autorenrichtlinien aufnehmen.
The number of published systematic reviews (SR) is steadily increasing. This makes abstracts increasingly important, as they provide a quick overview of the methodological approach and the main research findings. Researchers often decide whether to read the full article based on the information presented in the title and abstract. To improve the reporting quality of abstract, PRISMA-A was developed in 2013 and updated in 2020. However, the studies conducted in the context of this dissertation have shown that the majority of abstracts of SRs do not fully adhere to the PRISMA-A guideline. While authors of SRs need a certain number of words to provide informative abstracts, 250–300 words seemed to be sufficient. It is therefore recommended that reporting guidelines such as PRISMA-A include this word count, and that journals incorporate it into their author guidelines, irrespective of the study design.
American Medical Directors Association Journal of the American Medical Directors Association New York, NY : Elsevier, 2001 24(2023), 5, Seite 609-618 Online-Ressource
Background: Restrictions in systematic reviews (SRs) can lead to bias and may affect conclusions. Therefore, it is important to report whether and which restrictions were used. This study aims to examine the use of restrictions regarding language, publication period, and study type, as well as the transparency of reporting in SRs of effectiveness. - Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted with a random sample of 535 SRs of effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019. The use of restrictions and their reporting were analysed using descriptive statistics. - Results: Of the total 535 SRs included, four out of every ten (41.3%) lacked information on at least one of the three restrictions considered (language, publication period, or study type). Overall, 14.6% of SRs did not provide information on restrictions regarding publication period, 19.1% regarding study type, and 18.3% regarding language. Of all included SRs, language was restricted in 46.4%, and in more than half of the SRs with restricted language (130/248), it was unclear whether the restriction was applied during either the search or the screening process, or both. The restrictions were justified for publication period in 22.2% of the respective SRs (33/149), study type in 6.5% (28/433), and language in 3.2% (8/248). Differences in reporting were found between countries as well as between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. - Conclusions: This study suggests that there is a lack of transparency in reporting on restrictions in SRs. Authors as well as editors and reviewers should be encouraged to improve the reporting and justification of restrictions to increase the transparency of SRs.
BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), Artikel-ID 230, Seite 1-10 Online-Ressource
