Methodological and reporting quality in non-Cochrane systematic review updates could be improved: a comparative study

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to compare the methodological and reporting quality of updated systematic reviews (SRs) and original SRs. Study Design and SettingWe included 30 pairs of non-Cochrane updated and original SRs, identified from a search of PubMed and Embase.com. We used Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to assess methodological quality and Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for reporting quality. Stratified analyses were conducted to compare the differences between updated SRs and original SRs and explore factors that might affect the degree of quality change. ResultsOf the 60 non-Cochrane SRs, only two (3.3%) were of low quality, the remaining 58 (96.7%) were of critical low quality. There were no statistically significant differences in methodological quality between the updated SRs and original SRs, although the compliance rates of eight items of updated SRs were higher than that of original SRs. Updated SRs showed an improvement on 15 PRISMA items, but no items with statistically significant differences. The differences in fully reported AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA items between original SRs and updated SRs were also not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple review characteristics. ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of updated SRs were not improved compared with original SRs, although the quality could be further improved for both updated SRs and original SRs.