ObjectivesThe main objective of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) supporting the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD). As a secondary objective, we sought to determine: (1) the proportion of Cochrane SRs were cited; and (2) whether Cochrane SRs scored higher on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) appraisals.DesignCross-sectional analysis.Main outcome measuresWe searched for CPGs published by the ESC and the ACC from 2010 to 2020. We selected the CPGs for ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of SCD. The reference sections were searched for SRs. Two independent investigators evaluated eligible SR using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR-2 assessment tool.ResultsTwo CPGs for ventricular arrhythmia and SCD were included in this study. Fifty-five SRs were included in our analysis. Across all SRs, the mean PRISMA score was 0.70. The lowest scoring PRISMA item related to the presence of a pre-published protocol (item 5, score 0.17). Overall, 40% of included SRs were found to have ‘critically low’ AMSTAR-2 ratings. One of the lowest scoring items for AMSTAR-2 was reporting of sources of funding (item 10). The 4 Cochrane SRs that were included scored higher on both assessment tools than non-Cochrane studies, specifically in PRISMA overall completion (88.7% vs 69.7%).ConclusionOur study suggests the methodological and reporting quality of SRs used within ESC and ACC CPGs is insufficient, as demonstrated by the lack of adherence to both AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists. Given the importance of CPGs on clinical decision making, and ultimately patient care, the methodological rigour and quality reporting within SRs used in CPGs should be held to the highest standard within the field of cardiology.

No abstract

Background Predatory publishing is a deceptive form of publishing that uses unethical business practices, minimal to no peer review processes, or limited editorial oversight to publish articles. It may be problematic to our highest standard of scientific evidence—systematic reviews—through the inclusion of poor-quality and unusable data, which could mislead results, challenge outcomes, and undermine confidence. Thus, there is a growing concern surrounding the effects predatory publishing may have on scientific research and clinical decision-making. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate whether systematic reviews published in top dermatology journals contain primary studies published in suspected predatory journals (SPJs). Methods We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in the top five dermatology journals (determined by 5-year h-indices) between January 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. Primary studies were extracted from each systematic review, and the publishing journal of these primary studies was cross-referenced using Beall’s List and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. We performed chi-square tests to determine possible associations between a systematic review’s inclusion of a primary study published in a SPJ and particular study characteristics. Results Our randomized sample included 100 systematic reviews, of which 31 (31%) were found to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. Of the top five dermatology journals, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology had the most systematic reviews containing a primary study published in an SPJ. Systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis or registered protocol were significantly less likely to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. No statistically significant associations were found between other study characteristics. Conclusions Studies published in SPJs are commonly included as primary studies in systematic reviews published in high-impact dermatology journals. Future research is needed to investigate the effects of including suspected predatory publications in scientific research.

No abstract

UNSTRUCTURED No abstract required for research letter.