From: Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study
Item | Categories | Explanation |
---|---|---|
Named article as a SR | Yes; No | The authors named their own article as “systematic review” either in the title, abstract, aim or methods section of the article |
PRISMA referenced | Yes; No | The PRISMA guideline was explicitly referred to in the abstract or methods section |
Date of search reported | Yes; No | The date of search (at least month and year) was reported |
Full search strategy available | Yes; No | A complete and reproducible search strategy was available for at least one database. It was not sufficient to present only keywords or search strings. The appendix and/or protocol were only considered if explicitly referred to |
Assessment of validity | Yes; No | The validity of the included studies (e.g., risk of bias/methodological quality) was assessed and presented in the SR |
Flow chart available | Yes; No | A flow chart was presented in the methods, results or in the appendix (which was only considered if explicitly referenced) |
Restriction of publication period | Not reported; Without restriction of period; With restriction of period | Regardless of whether the publication period was restricted, the SR clearly stated which period was considered. If the publication period was restricted, the years under consideration had to be stated. If the publication period was restricted in one database only or the author searched the database from the date of inception (e.g. Medline 1996), the item was classified as “without restriction of period” |
Restriction of publication period justified | Yes; No | If the publication period was restricted: In the methods section, an explicit justification why the restriction was chosen had to be provided |
Restriction of study type | Not reported; Only RCTs included; NRSI and RCTs included | The included study types were reported |
Eligibility of study type justified | Yes; No | Regardless of whether only RCTs or NRSIs & RCTs were considered: In the methods section, an explicit justification why the restriction was chosen had to be provided |
Restriction of language | Not reported; Without language restriction; With language restriction | Any language restriction had to be reported in the methods section, either in the eligibility criteria or the search strategy. The appendix and/or protocol were only considered if explicitly referred to |
Language restriction justified | Yes; No | If there was a language restriction: In the methods section, an explicit justification why the restriction was chosen had to be provided |
Point of language restriction | Unclear; Search strategy; Screening | If there was a language restriction: Was the restriction described in the search strategy or the screening process? If the methodical approach was unclear or it was not possible to retrace whether the language restriction was applied during the search or the screening, the item was evaluated as “unclear” |
Failed to report at least one of the restrictions considered | Yes; No | This item is a combination of the three items "restriction of publication period", "restriction of study type", and " restriction of language". If at least one of these items was categorised as “not reported” this item was classified as “Yes” |