Abstract
Objective The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009, has been widely endorsed and compliance is high in systematic reviews of intervention studies. Systematic reviews of prevalence studies are increasing in frequency, but their characteristics and reporting quality have not been examined in large studies. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adults, evaluate the completeness of reporting and explore study-level characteristics associated with the completeness of reporting.
Study design and setting We did a meta-research study. We searched 5 databases from January 2010 to December 2020 to identify systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations. We used the PRISMA 2009 checklist to assess completeness of reporting and recorded additional characteristics. We conducted a descriptive analysis of review characteristics and linear regression to assess the relationship between compliance with PRISMA and publication characteristics.
Results We included 1172 systematic reviews of prevalence studies. The number of reviews increased from 25 in 2010 to 273 in 2020. The median PRISMA score for systematic reviews without meta-analysis was 17.5 out of a maximum of 23 and, for systematic reviews with meta-analysis, 22 out of a maximum of 25. Completeness of reporting, particularly for key items in the methods section was suboptimal. Systematic reviews that included a meta-analysis or reported using a reporting or conduct guideline were the factors most strongly associated with increased compliance with PRISMA 2009.
Conclusion Reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence was adequate for many PRISMA items. Nonetheless, this study highlights aspects for which special attention is needed. Development of a specific tool to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies and an extension to the PRISMA statement could improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies.
Plain language summary A systematic review is a type of research study, which is used to summarise the available information from different studies about a specific topic, such as the prevalence of a disease. Meta-analysis is a statistical method for combining data from individual studies, which can be used to obtain the prevalence of the disease of interest in the populations studied in a systematic review.
The PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is a guideline for researchers. It includes a checklist of all information that authors of a systematic review should include in their report. Many scientific journals ask authors to use the PRISMA statement. How well authors use the guideline to report the systematic reviews of prevalence studies is not known.
In our paper, we aimed to describe the characteristics of systematic reviews of studies of We included 1,172 systematic reviews of prevalence studies. The number of these reviews grew, from 25 in 2010 to 273 in 2020. Systematic review authors reported the information required for many items in the PRISMA checklist. Other items were reported less well, such as registering a protocol for the systematic review, assessing the risk of biased results in studies included in the review, reporting the methods planned for analysis, discussing limitations and reporting sources of funding. Systematic reviews of prevalence that included a meta-analysis (a statistical method to combine prevalence data) or followed a guideline were better at complying to the PRISMA 2009.
Our study suggests reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence might improve if there were an extension of the PRISMA statement specifically for systematic reviews of prevalence studies and if there were a new tool to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies.
What is new?
Systematic reviews of prevalence increased from 25 in 2010 to 2020, to 273 in 2020.
Reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence has improved but is still suboptimal.
Reporting was better in reviews with a meta-analysis and which followed a guideline.
Journals should encourage adherence to PRISMA for systematic reviews of prevalence.
A risk of bias tool and a PRISMA extension for systematic reviews of prevalence should be developed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding This work received support from the Swiss government excellence scholarship (grant number 2019.0774), the SSPH+ Global PhD Fellowship Programme in Public Health Sciences of the Swiss School of Public Health. Georgia Salanti acknowledges the Swiss National Science Foundation for funding of her work through the NRP 78 initiative (Project 198418)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
In this revision, we have revised the study title (from meta-epidemiological study to meta-research), conducted minor revisions in the text, and added a plain-language summary.
Data Availability
Raw data and bibliographic details of the included studies are published on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/m5n6s/
Abbreviations
- IQR
- Interquartile ranges
- MOOSE
- Reporting Guidelines for Meta-analyses of Observational Studies
- PRISMA
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- SR
- Systematic review
