Adherence to PRISMA 2020 statement assessed through the expanded checklist in systematic reviews of interventions: A meta‐epidemiological study

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThe preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta‐analyses. Due to the suboptimal reporting of the 2009 version, an update was performed and published in 2021. Despite having been evaluated in studies published before its publication, its adherence in SRs of interventions published after 2021 remains unclear.ObjectiveTo assess PRISMA 2020 statement adherence and its uptake in SRs of interventions.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cross‐sectional study searching MEDLINE (PubMed), including a 10% random sample of all SRs involving human interventions published since January 2022 retrieved by our search process. We did not apply any restrictions. We assessed PRISMA 2020 statement uptake and its adherence using its expanded checklist.ResultsWe included 222 out of 945 studies. 67 (30.18%) used PRISMA 2020 statement. None adhered completely, with an average adherence of 42.64% (Min–Max: 14.29%–76.19%). Results and Methods sections had low adherence, with 40.57% (Min–Max: 10.45%–98.51%) and 25.55% (Min–Max: 7.46%–55.22%) respectively. The items with the least adherence were: certainty and reporting bias assessment, excluded studies characteristics and search strategy with 7.46% (5/67), 8.96% (6/67), 10.45% (7/67), and 11.94% (8/67) respectively.DiscussionAs in previous studies, our study showed low adherence, mainly to the methods and results sections. However, our study showed a lower adherence, probably due to the use of the expanded checklist to assessed the tools adherence.ConclusionWe found a low adherence rate to the PRISMA 2020 expanded checklist. Further PRISMA dissemination and targeted audience training are needed to improve SR reporting and quality.