Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to analyze how instructions for authors in journals indexed in MEDLINE address systematic review (SR) reporting and methodology. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed instructions for authors in 20% of MEDLINE-indexed journals listed in the online catalog of the National Library of Medicine on July 27, 2021. We extracted data only from the instructions published in English. We extracted data on the existence of instructions for reporting and methodology of SRs. RESULTS: Instructions from 1,237 journals mentioned SRs in 45% (n = 560) of the cases. Systematic review (SR) registration was mentioned in 104/1,237 (8%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SR protocols were found in 155/1,237 (13%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SRs were explicitly mentioned in 461/1,237 (37%), whereas the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network was referred to in 474/1,237 (38%) of instructions. Less than 2% (n = 20) of instructions mentioned risk of bias and meta-analyses; less than 1% mentioned certainty of evidence assessment, methodological expectations, updating of SRs, overviews of SRs, or scoping reviews. CONCLUSION: Journals indexed in MEDLINE rarely provide instructions for authors regarding SR reporting and methodology. Such instructions could potentially raise authors' awareness and improve how SRs are prepared and reported.

Authors arbitrarily used methodological approaches to analyze the quality of reporting in research reports: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: Many authors used reporting checklists as an assessment tool to analyze the reporting quality of diverse types of evidence. We aimed to analyze methodological approaches used by researchers assessing reporting quality of evidence in randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and observational studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed articles reporting quality assessment of evidence with Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), or the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklists published up to 18 July 2021. We analyzed methods used for assessing reporting quality. RESULTS: Among 356 analyzed articles, 293 (88%) investigated a specific thematic field. The CONSORT checklist (N = 225; 67%) was most often used, in its original, modified, partial form, or its extension. Numerical scores were given for adherence to checklist items in 252 articles (75%), of which 36 articles (11%) used various reporting quality thresholds. In 158 (47%) articles, predictors of adherence to reporting checklist were analyzed. The most studied factor associated with adherence to reporting checklist was the year of article publication (N = 82; 52%). CONCLUSION: The methodology used for assessing reporting quality of evidence varied considerably. The research community needs a consensus on a consistent methodology for assessing the quality of reporting.

Recommendations from Cochrane reviews for improving future trials on anesthesia and pain: a meta-research study.

Background: Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) have a section 'Implications for research' where authors make suggestions for improving future research. The authors of the present study assessed the prevalence and time dynamics of different recommendations in the CSRs about anesthesia and pain. Methods: The authors included all CSRs published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Group and Cochrane Pain and Palliative Care Group before 17 July 2020. The authors analyzed recommendations for improving future research listed in the 'Implications for research' section of these CSRs and categorized recommendations for improvements. Results: They analyzed 370 reviews. Four categories of recommendations were present in more than 40% of the reviews. Most reviews recommended a larger sample size and better outcome choice, study design and choice of future intervention. These recommendations gradually increased in frequency in the Cochrane Pain and Palliative Care Group and mainly decreased in the Cochrane Anaesthesia Group. Conclusion: Recommendations from CSRs offer useful advice for trialists designing new trials.