Skip to main content

Table 2 Adherence to individual items of PRISMA-A in analyzed systematic reviews and frequency of discrepancies between two authors for each item

From: Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience

No. PRISMA-A item Description Adherent, N (%)a Non-adherent, N (%)a Discrepancies in rating between raters, N (%)a
1 Title Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both 234 (95.9) 10 (4.1) 0 (0)
2 Objectives The research question including components such as participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes 216 (88.5) 28 (11.5) 46 (19)
3 Eligibility criteria Study and report characteristics used as criteria for inclusion 17 (7) 227 (93) 3 (1.2)
4 Information sources Key databases searched and search dates 71 (29.1) 173 (70.9) 0 (0)
5 Risk of bias Methods of assessing risk of bias 12 (4.9) 232 (95.1) 16 (6.6)
6 Included studies Number and type of included studies and participants and relevant characteristics of studies 29 (11.9) 215 (88.1) 28 (11)
7 Synthesis of results Results for main outcomes (benefits and harms), preferably indicating the number of studies and participants for each. If meta-analysis was done, include summary measures and confidence intervals 202 (82.8) 42 (17.2) 9 (3.7)
8 Description of the effect Direction of the effect (i.e. which group is favoured) and size of the effect in terms meaningful to clinicians and patients 210 (86.1) 34 (13.9) 143 (59)
9 Strengths and limitations of evidence Brief summary of strengths and limitations of evidence (e.g. inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or risk of bias, other supporting or conflicting evidence) 48 (19.7) 196 (80.3) 23 (9.4)
10 Interpretation General interpretation of the results and important implications 236 (96.7) 8 (3.3) 7 (2.9)
11 Funding Primary source of funding for the review 0 (0) 244 (100) 0 (0)
12 Registration Registration number and registry name 2 (0.8) 242 (99.2) 0 (0)
  1. aPercentages calculated from the total number of analyzed abstracts: 244