Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey

Abstract

Background There is an increasing number of published systematic reviews (SR) of dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs) over the past decades. However, the quality of abstract reporting of these SR-DRMAs remains to be understood. We conducted a literature survey to investigate the abstract reporting of SR-DRMAs. Methods Medline, Embase, and Wiley online Library were searched for eligible SR-DRMAs. The reporting quality of SR-DRMAs was assessed by the modified PRISMA-for-Abstract checklist (14 items). We summarized the adherence rate of each item and categorized them as well complied (adhered by 80% or above), moderately complied (50 to 79%), and poorly complied (less than 50%). We used total score to reflect the abstract quality and regression analysis was employed to explore the potential influence factors for it. Results We included 529 SR-DRMAs. Eight of 14 items were moderately (3 items) or poorly complied (5 items) while only 6 were well complied by these SR-DRMAs. Most of the SR-DRMAs failed to describe the methods for risk of bias assessment (30.2, 95% CI: 26.4, 34.4%) and the results of bias assessment (48.8, 95% CI: 44.4, 53.1%). Few SR-DRMAs reported the funding (2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.9%) and registration (0.6, 95% CI: 0.1, 1.6%) information in the abstract. Multivariable regression analysis suggested word number of abstracts [> 250 vs. ≤ 250 (estimated ß = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.61; P = 0.039)] was positively associated with the abstract reporting quality. Conclusion The abstract reporting of SR-DRMAs is suboptimal, substantial effort is needed to improve the reporting. More word number may benefit for the abstract reporting. Given that reporting of abstract largely depends on the reporting and conduct of the SR-DRMA, review authors should also focus on the completeness of SR-DRMA itself. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0798-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cochrane review abstracts are getting longer, but this has no large impact on the reporting quality

“…This aspect is also discussed in other methodological papers on writing good abstracts, but the latter simultaneously emphasize that an abstract should be attractive and concise 8 . Previous studies suggest that authors need a certain number of words to report in compliance with PRISMA‐A, 12,20 especially in case of reviews that address multiple or complex interventions, but they also indicate that a word count of 300 words appears to be sufficient 25 . CRs contain a median of seven studies, with more than 25% containing one to three studies, compared with a median of 13 studies included in non‐Cochrane Reviews 12 .…”

“…Funding and registration are also not reported in other reviews 12,[19][20][21][22] and seem to be less important in abstracts than the information on results and methodology. that is also "pleasant to read."…”

“…PRISMA‐A requires reporting both the methods used to assess the risk of bias and the corresponding tool. Funding and registration are also not reported in other reviews 12,19–22 and seem to be less important in abstracts than the information on results and methodology. The importance of the title, which is very rarely PRISMA‐A compliant in CRs, should be re‐emphasized in particular.…”

An Evaluation of the Presence of Spin in the Abstracts of Tonsillectomy Systematic Reviews

“…The reporting quality of SR abstracts is suboptimal in several areas of medical literature 26–31 . Efforts have been made to improve the quality of reporting in abstracts, such as the development of the PRISMA extension for abstracts—PRISMA‐A—released in April 2013 32 .…”