title: Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: Systematic reviews are popular. A recent estimate indicates that 11 new systematic reviews are published daily. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that the quality of reporting of systematic reviews is not optimal. One likely reason is that the authors' reports have received inadequate peer review. There are now many different types of systematic reviews and peer reviewing them can be enhanced by using a reporting guideline to supplement whatever template the journal editors have asked you, as a peer reviewer, to use. Additionally, keeping up with the current literature, whether as a content expert or being aware of advances in systematic review methods is likely be make for a more comprehensive and effective peer review. Providing a brief summary of what the systematic review has reported is an important first step in the peer review process (and not performed frequently enough). At its core, it provides the authors with some sense of what the peer reviewer believes was performed (Methods) and found (Results). Importantly, it also provides clarity regarding any potential problems in the methods, including statistical approaches for meta-analysis, results, and interpretation of the systematic review, for which the peer reviewer can seek explanations from the authors; these clarifications are best presented as questions to the authors.
authors.affiliation: Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, General Campus, 501 Smyth Rd, Room L1288, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. dmoher@ohri.ca.|School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. dmoher@ohri.ca.|Canadian EQUATOR Centre, Ottawa, Canada. dmoher@ohri.ca.
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Moher
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D010380:Peer Review / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*