Background: Inaccurate references and citations cause confusion, distrust in the accuracy of a report, waste of time and unnecessary financial charges for libraries, information centres and researchers. Objectives: The aim of the study was to establish the accuracy of article references in PhD theses from the Tehran and Tabriz Universities of Medical Sciences and their compliance with the Vancouver style. Methods: We analysed 357 article references in the Tehran and 347 in the Tabriz. Six bibliographic elements were assessed: authors' names, article title, journal title, publication year, volume and page range. Referencing errors were divided into major and minor. Results: Sixty two percent of references in the Tehran and 53% of those in the Tabriz were erroneous. In total, 164 references in the Tehran and 136 in the Tabriz were complete without error. Of 357 reference articles in the Tehran, 34 (9.8%) were in complete accordance with the Vancouver style, compared with none in the Tabriz. Accuracy of referencing did not differ significantly between the two groups, but compliance with the Vancouver style was significantly better in the Tehran. Conclusions: The accuracy of referencing was not satisfactory in both groups, and students need to gain adequate instruction in appropriate referencing methods.

A comprehensive and reproducible search strategy for systematic reviews especially about COVID-19 plays a pivotal role in conducting a reliable and unbiased review. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the quality of the search strategy reporting in systematic reviews conducted on the role of telehealth during COVID-19. The secondary aim of study was to explore some affecting factor in the quality of search strategy. The study evaluated the quality of the search strategy reporting with PRISMA-S checklist. The search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and other related databases. Systematic reviews were included. There was no language restriction. The correlation of the PRISMA-S scores with journal impact factor, CiteScore, and librarians’ role were evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. A total of 85 articles were included in the review. The overall mean score of PRISMA-S checklist was 6.12 ± 1.46. PubMed was the most popular database for search. More than half of the studies did not provide a full search strategy. There was a significant positive correlation between PRISMA-S score and the journal impact factor (Spearman’s rho = 0.217; P = 0.46) and CiteScore (Spearman’s rho = 0.235; P = 0.03). The quality of literature search was poor in the included studies. Using the PRISMA-S as a search reporting guideline can be a helpful tool for authors. A professional librarian can be beneficial in improving the quality of the search. It is recommended to use a new pattern in COVID-19-related searches, such as preprint sources.