Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Nov 10;12(22):7031.
doi: 10.3390/jcm12227031.

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Orthopedic Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Norio Yamamoto  1   2   3 , Shunsuke Taito  3   4 , Takanori Miura  3   5 , Takashi Ariie  3   6 , Yosuke Tomita  7 , Hirofumi Ogihara  3   8 , Daijo Shiratsuchi  9   10 , Takashi Yorifuji  2 , Yasushi Tsujimoto  3   11   12
Affiliations
Review

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Orthopedic Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Norio Yamamoto et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) with complete reporting or rigorous methods can lead to less biased recommendations and decisions. A comprehensive analysis of the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of SRs in orthopedics is lacking. We evaluated 360 SRs, including 165 and 195 published in orthopedic journals in 2012 and 2022. According to the established reporting guidelines, we examined these SRs for key epidemiological characteristics, including focus areas, type of meta-analysis (MA), and reporting characteristics. Most SRs (71%) were therapy-related, with a significant proportion originating from authors in the USA, UK, and China. Pairwise MA was performed on half of the SRs. The proportion of protocol registrations improved by 2022 but remained low (33%). Despite a formal declaration of adherence to the reporting guidelines (68%), they were often not used and reported enough. Only 10% of the studies used full search strategies, including trial registries. Publication bias assessments, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were not even planned. The risk of bias assessment improved in 2022; however, the certainty of the evidence remained largely unassessed (8%). The use and reporting of standard methods in orthopedic SRs have remained suboptimal. Thus, authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and readers should criticize the results more.

Keywords: PRISMA; full search strategy; meta-analysis; reporting guidelines; systemic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2: Cochrane. 2021. [(accessed on 8 October 2023)]. Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.2.
    1. Chalmers I., Bracken M.B., Djulbegovic B., Garattini S., Grant J., Gülmezoglu A.M., Howells D.W., Ioannidis J.P.A., Oliver S. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–165. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sacks H.S., Reitman D., Pagano D., Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: An update. Mt. Sinai J. Med. 1996;63:216–224. - PubMed
    1. Hoffmann F., Allers K., Rombey T., Helbach J., Hoffmann A., Mathes T., Pieper D. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000–2019. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021;138:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.022. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources