title: Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly popular to a wide range of stakeholders. We set out to capture a representative cross-sectional sample of published SRs and examine them in terms of a broad range of epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics, including emerging aspects not previously examined.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We searched Medline for SRs indexed during November 2004 and written in English. Citations were screened and those meeting our inclusion criteria were retained. Data were collected using a 51-item data collection form designed to assess the epidemiological and reporting details and the bias-related aspects of the reviews. The data were analyzed descriptively. In total 300 SRs were identified, suggesting a current annual publication rate of about 2,500, involving more than 33,700 separate studies including one-third of a million participants. The majority (272 [90.7%]) of SRs were reported in specialty journals. Most reviews (213 [71.0%]) were categorized as therapeutic, and included a median of 16 studies involving 1,112 participants. Funding sources were not reported in more than one-third (122 [40.7%]) of the reviews. Reviews typically searched a median of three electronic databases and two other sources, although only about two-thirds (208 [69.3%]) of them reported the years searched. Most (197/295 [66.8%]) reviews reported information about quality assessment, while few (68/294 [23.1%]) reported assessing for publication bias. A little over half (161/300 [53.7%]) of the SRs reported combining their results statistically, of which most (147/161 [91.3%]) assessed for consistency across studies. Few (53 [17.7%]) SRs reported being updates of previously completed reviews. No review had a registration number. Only half (150 [50.0%]) of the reviews used the term "systematic review" or "meta-analysis" in the title or abstract. There were large differences between Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews in the quality of reporting several characteristics.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  SRs are now produced in large numbers, and our data suggest that the quality of their reporting is inconsistent. This situation might be improved if more widely agreed upon evidence-based reporting guidelines were endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals. These results substantiate the view that readers should not accept SRs uncritically.
authors: Chalmers Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. dmoher@uottawa.ca
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Moher
authors: Jennifer
authors: J
authors: Tetzlaff
authors: Andrea C
authors: AC
authors: Tricco
authors: Margaret
authors: M
authors: Sampson
authors: Douglas G
authors: DG
authors: Altman
mesh_terms: D015982:Bias; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000639:trends; D004813:Epidemiology; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006296:Health Services / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006302:Health Services Research; D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D012107:Research Design / Q000639:trends; D012196:Review Literature as Topic