Eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals: a methodological review. Issue 6 (14th September 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: McCrae, Niall; Purssell, Edward
• Is Part Of: Journal of evaluation in clinical practice. Volume 21:Issue 6(2015)
• Page Start: 1052
• Page End: 1058
• Publication Date: 2015-09-14
• Subjects: bias -- eligibility criteria -- meta‐analysis -- reporting -- review -- systematic review; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 616.005
• DOI: 10.1111/jep.12448
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1356-1294

Abstract

Abstract: Rationale and aim: Clear and logical eligibility criteria are fundamental to the design and conduct of a systematic review. This methodological review examined the quality of reporting and application of eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in three leading medical journals. Methods: All systematic reviews in the BMJ, JAMA and T he L ancet in the years 2013 and 2014 were extracted. These were assessed using a refined version of a checklist previously designed by the authors. Results: A total of 113 papers were eligible, of which 65 were in BMJ, 17 in T he L ancet and 31 in JAMA . Although a generally high level of reporting was found, eligibility criteria were often problematic. In 67% of papers, eligibility was specified after the search sources or terms. Unjustified time restrictions were used in 21% of reviews, and unpublished or unspecified data in 27%. Inconsistency between journals was apparent in the requirements for systematic reviews. Conclusions: The quality of reviews in these leading medical journals was high; however, there were issues that reduce the clarity and replicability of the review process. As well as providing a useful checklist, this methodological review informs the continued development of standards for systematic reviews.