Retrieving Cochrane reviews is sometimes challenging and their reporting is not always optimal

Pieper, Dawid; Hoffmann, Falk

doi:10.1002/jrsm.1564

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CRs are very rarely referred to as SRs or meta‐analyses in the title or abstract. This makes finding CRs in the bulk of literature much more difficult 23 when searching for the term “systematic review.” In comparison, several studies show that more than 80% of non‐Cochrane Reviews are labeled as SRs already in the title 12,19,21 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cochrane review abstracts are getting longer, but this has no large impact on the reporting quality

Helbach,

Wandscher,

Pieper

et al. 2023

J Evidence Based Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting of abstracts of Cochrane Reviews according to PRISMA‐A and to investigate a possible association with the abstract´s length.MethodsThis is a retrospective, observational study based on all Cochrane Reviews indexed in Medline (via PubMed) until November 18, 2022. In the second part, a random sample of 440 abstracts was drawn, in which PRISMA‐A adherence was assessed by two independent reviewers. Analyses were stratified by the year of publication and the number of words.ResultsOverall, the median number of words of the 15,188 included abstracts was 469 (IQR 389–686 words), steadily increasing from 353 words in 2000 to 838 words in 2022, with less than one percent of the abstracts in 2022 having ≤ 300 words (in 2000: 30.7%). Analyses on PRISMA‐A adherence in the random sample showed a mean score of 6.1 out of 12 fully reported items. Stratified by year, PRISMA‐A adherence increased, with higher word counts in 2000–2010 and 2011–2015, while there was no difference in PRISMA‐A adherence by abstract length in 2016–2022.ConclusionOver the years, abstracts of Cochrane Reviews have become longer, running up to 1000 words. This conflicts with the Cochrane Handbook, which recommends a maximum length of 400 until it was aligned with MECIR in 2019, which has recommended a length of <700 words since 2012 but allows up to 1000 words. It is debatable whether such long abstracts meet the key goals of abstracts of being informative, accurate, appealing, and concise.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…more difficult23 when searching for the term "systematic review." In comparison, several studies show that more than 80% of non-Cochrane Reviews are labeled as SRs already in the title 12,19,21.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochrane review abstracts are getting longer, but this has no large impact on the reporting quality

Helbach,

Wandscher,

Pieper

et al. 2023

J Evidence Based Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, however, few studies are available which compare the methodological approach and reporting of Cochrane reviews versus non-Cochrane reviews. This is important because peculiarities of Cochrane reviews might lead to deficient retrieval [38,43].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study

Helbach

Pieper

Mathes

et al. 2022

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Reporting according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) depends on abstract length

Helbach

Hoffmann

Pieper

et al. 2023

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrieving Cochrane reviews is sometimes challenging and their reporting is not always optimal

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

Cochrane review abstracts are getting longer, but this has no large impact on the reporting quality

Cochrane review abstracts are getting longer, but this has no large impact on the reporting quality

Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study

Reporting according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) depends on abstract length

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About