Abstract
BackgroundA recent study by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028) claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly-conducted and reported. The aim of the present study was to assess how well reporting standards of systematic reviews produced in a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) context compare with reporting in Cochrane and other ‘non-Cochrane’ systematic reviews from the same years (2004 and 2014), as reported by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028).MethodsAll relevant UK HTA programme systematic reviews published in 2004 and 2014 were identified. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data on conduct and reporting from these reviews. These data were compared with data for Cochrane and “non-Cochrane” systematic reviews, as published by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). All data were tabulated and summarized.ResultsThere were 30 UK HTA programme systematic reviews and 300 other systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews (n = 45). The percentage of HTA reviews with required elements of conduct and reporting was frequently very similar to Cochrane and much higher than all other systematic reviews, e.g. availability of protocols (90, 98 and 16% respectively); the specification of study design criteria (100, 100, 79%); the reporting of outcomes (100, 100, 78%), quality assessment (100, 100, 70%); the searching of trial registries for unpublished data (70, 62, 19%); reporting of reasons for excluding studies (91, 91 and 70%) and reporting of authors’ conflicts of interests (100, 100, 87%). HTA reviews only compared less favourably with Cochrane and other reviews in assessments of publication bias.ConclusionsUK HTA systematic reviews are often produced within a specific policy-making context. This context has implications for timelines, tools and resources. However, UK HTA systematic reviews still tend to present standards of conduct and reporting equivalent to “gold standard” Cochrane reviews and superior to systematic reviews more generally.
Highlights
A recent study by Page et al (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028) claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly-conducted and reported
In order to generate the data for the proposed comparison between United Kingdom (UK) HTA systematic reviews and the systematic reviews reported in Page et al, [1], a simple search was performed in August 2016 to identify the systematic reviews published in the Health Technology Assessment monograph series from 2004 and 2014
The Page et al study reported on 255 non-Cochrane reviews from 2014 and 300 systematic reviews published in 2004 [1]
Summary
A recent study by Page et al (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028) claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly-conducted and reported. The research concluded that reporting had improved since 2004, in large part due to developments such as the publication of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses) statement [3] as the relevant standard for the Carroll and Kaltenthaler BMC Medical Research Methodology (2018) 18:35 reporting of systematic reviews It noted that poor conduct and reporting was still frequent (it was considered to be ‘suboptimal’ for many characteristics) and strategies are needed to improve this if systematic reviews are to offer genuine rather than just hypothetical value to ‘patients, health care practitioners and policymakers’ [1]. These included using certain ‘writing tools’ to enforce reporting guidelines; editorial application of guidelines; involvement of relevant stakeholders from beyond the review team; and assessing the reporting of bias within the systematic review itself [1]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
