有病率研究の系統的レビューの増加

タイトル: Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-research study.

概要: ObjectiveThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009, has been widely endorsed and compliance is high in systematic reviews of intervention studies. Systematic reviews of prevalence studies are increasing in frequency, but their characteristics and reporting quality have not been examined in large studies. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adults, evaluate the completeness of reporting and explore study-level characteristics associated with the completeness of reporting. Study design and settingWe did a meta-research study. We searched 5 databases from January 2010 to December 2020 to identify systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations. We used the PRISMA 2009 checklist to assess completeness of reporting and recorded additional characteristics. We conducted a descriptive analysis of review characteristics and linear regression to assess the relationship between compliance with PRISMA and publication characteristics. ResultsWe included 1172 systematic reviews of prevalence studies. The number of reviews increased from 25 in 2010 to 273 in 2020. The median PRISMA score for systematic reviews without meta-analysis was 17.5 out of a maximum of 23 and, for systematic reviews with meta-analysis, 22 out of a maximum of 25. Completeness of reporting, particularly for key items in the methods section was suboptimal. Systematic reviews that included a meta-analysis or reported using a reporting or conduct guideline were the factors most strongly associated with increased compliance with PRISMA 2009. ConclusionReporting of systematic reviews of prevalence was adequate for many PRISMA items. Nonetheless, this study highlights aspects for which special attention is needed. Development of a specific tool to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies and an extension to the PRISMA statement could improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies. Plain language summaryA systematic review is a type of research study, which is used to summarise the available information from different studies about a specific topic, such as the prevalence of a disease. Meta-analysis is a statistical method for combining data from individual studies, which can be used to obtain the prevalence of the disease of interest in the populations studied in a systematic review. The PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is a guideline for researchers. It includes a checklist of all information that authors of a systematic review should include in their report. Many scientific journals ask authors to use the PRISMA statement. How well authors use the guideline to report the systematic reviews of prevalence studies is not known. In our paper, we aimed to describe the characteristics of systematic reviews of studies of We included 1,172 systematic reviews of prevalence studies. The number of these reviews grew, from 25 in 2010 to 273 in 2020. Systematic review authors reported the information required for many items in the PRISMA checklist. Other items were reported less well, such as registering a protocol for the systematic review, assessing the risk of biased results in studies included in the review, reporting the methods planned for analysis, discussing limitations and reporting sources of funding. Systematic reviews of prevalence that included a meta-analysis (a statistical method to combine prevalence data) or followed a guideline were better at complying to the PRISMA 2009. Our study suggests reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence might improve if there were an extension of the PRISMA statement specifically for systematic reviews of prevalence studies and if there were a new tool to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies. What is new?O_LISystematic reviews of prevalence increased from 25 in 2010 to 2020, to 273 in 2020. C_LIO_LIReporting of systematic reviews of prevalence has improved but is still suboptimal. C_LIO_LIReporting was better in reviews with a meta-analysis and which followed a guideline. C_LIO_LIJournals should encourage adherence to PRISMA for systematic reviews of prevalence. C_LIO_LIA risk of bias tool and a PRISMA extension for systematic reviews of prevalence should be developed. C_LI