Reporting according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) depends on abstract length

Helbach, Jasmin; Hoffmann, Falk; Pieper, Dawid; Allers, Katharina

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.12.019

Cited by 21 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At a mean total score of 6.1 items, CR abstracts seem to be better reported than abstracts of non‐Cochrane Reviews, which completely report an average of 5.2 items 12 . Nevertheless, they show some potential for improvement, especially regarding item 1 (title), item 5 (risk of bias), item 11 (funding), and item 12 (reporting).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…At a mean total score of 6.1 items, CR abstracts seem to be better reported than abstracts of non-Cochrane Reviews, which completely report an average of 5.2 items. 12 Nevertheless, they show some potential for improvement, especially regarding item 1 (title), item 5 (risk of bias), item 11 (funding), and item 12 (reporting). Cochrane uses standardized editorial processes 13 and provides very comprehensive information on what content to report, where to report it, and how to report it in both their handbook 14 and the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cochrane Reviews (CRs) were better reported than non‐Cochrane Reviews and differed substantially in terms of the structure and length of an abstract. At a median length of 507 words (vs. 249 words), CR abstracts are much longer than non‐Cochrane review abstracts and appear to be steadily increasing in length over recent years 12 . However, the considered sample of CR abstracts was too small to draw robust conclusions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…To address the importance of abstract quality in SRs, PRISMA for Abstracts (PRISMA‐A) was developed in 2013 10 and updated in 2020 11 . In our previous study on the reporting quality of abstracts of SRs according to PRISMA‐A, 12 we found a positive correlation between the number of words and reporting quality. Cochrane Reviews (CRs) were better reported than non‐Cochrane Reviews and differed substantially in terms of the structure and length of an abstract.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…At a median length of 507 words (vs. 249 words), CR abstracts are much longer than non-Cochrane review abstracts and appear to be steadily increasing in length over recent years. 12 However, the considered sample of CR abstracts was too small to draw robust conclusions. Overall, there is a general lack of studies addressing the quality of reporting or trends in the length of CR abstracts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Helbach,

Wandscher,

Pieper

et al. 2023

J Evidence Based Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting of abstracts of Cochrane Reviews according to PRISMA‐A and to investigate a possible association with the abstract´s length.MethodsThis is a retrospective, observational study based on all Cochrane Reviews indexed in Medline (via PubMed) until November 18, 2022. In the second part, a random sample of 440 abstracts was drawn, in which PRISMA‐A adherence was assessed by two independent reviewers. Analyses were stratified by the year of publication and the number of words.ResultsOverall, the median number of words of the 15,188 included abstracts was 469 (IQR 389–686 words), steadily increasing from 353 words in 2000 to 838 words in 2022, with less than one percent of the abstracts in 2022 having ≤ 300 words (in 2000: 30.7%). Analyses on PRISMA‐A adherence in the random sample showed a mean score of 6.1 out of 12 fully reported items. Stratified by year, PRISMA‐A adherence increased, with higher word counts in 2000–2010 and 2011–2015, while there was no difference in PRISMA‐A adherence by abstract length in 2016–2022.ConclusionOver the years, abstracts of Cochrane Reviews have become longer, running up to 1000 words. This conflicts with the Cochrane Handbook, which recommends a maximum length of 400 until it was aligned with MECIR in 2019, which has recommended a length of <700 words since 2012 but allows up to 1000 words. It is debatable whether such long abstracts meet the key goals of abstracts of being informative, accurate, appealing, and concise.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Helbach,

Wandscher,

Pieper

et al. 2023

J Evidence Based Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Adherence to PRISMA 2020 statement assessed through the expanded checklist in systematic reviews of interventions: A meta‐epidemiological study

Ivaldi,

Burgos,

Oltra

et al. 2024

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta‐analyses. Due to the suboptimal reporting of the 2009 version, an update was performed and published in 2021. Despite having been evaluated in studies published before its publication, its adherence in SRs of interventions published after 2021 remains unclear.ObjectiveTo assess PRISMA 2020 statement adherence and its uptake in SRs of interventions.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cross‐sectional study searching MEDLINE (PubMed), including a 10% random sample of all SRs involving human interventions published since January 2022 retrieved by our search process. We did not apply any restrictions. We assessed PRISMA 2020 statement uptake and its adherence using its expanded checklist.ResultsWe included 222 out of 945 studies. 67 (30.18%) used PRISMA 2020 statement. None adhered completely, with an average adherence of 42.64% (Min–Max: 14.29%–76.19%). Results and Methods sections had low adherence, with 40.57% (Min–Max: 10.45%–98.51%) and 25.55% (Min–Max: 7.46%–55.22%) respectively. The items with the least adherence were: certainty and reporting bias assessment, excluded studies characteristics and search strategy with 7.46% (5/67), 8.96% (6/67), 10.45% (7/67), and 11.94% (8/67) respectively.DiscussionAs in previous studies, our study showed low adherence, mainly to the methods and results sections. However, our study showed a lower adherence, probably due to the use of the expanded checklist to assessed the tools adherence.ConclusionWe found a low adherence rate to the PRISMA 2020 expanded checklist. Further PRISMA dissemination and targeted audience training are needed to improve SR reporting and quality.

show abstract

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon: underpinning the contribution of specialist microbial species to contaminant mitigation in the soil

Aso,

Obuekwe

2024

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reporting according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) depends on abstract length

Cited by 21 publications

References 25 publications

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

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

Adherence to PRISMA 2020 statement assessed through the expanded checklist in systematic reviews of interventions: A meta‐epidemiological study

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon: underpinning the contribution of specialist microbial species to contaminant mitigation in the soil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About