CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyClinical practice guidelines implementation

An observational study found large methodological heterogeneity in systematic reviews addressing prevalence and cumulative incidence

Hoffmann, Falk, Eggers, Daniela, Pieper, Dawid, Zeeb, Hajo, Allers, Katharina·2020·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this study was to assess reporting and methodological aspects of systematic reviews (SRs) on prevalence and cumulative incidence data.Study design and setting We searched PubMed up to 18 April, 2018, and drew a random sample of eligible SRs.Results The included 215 SRs were reported in 187 different journals. 58.1% were published between 2015 and 2018. Few SRs were registered with PROSPERO (5.6%). One-quarter considered articles without languages restrictions (25.1%). Regional restrictions of included studies were applied in 22.8%. A meta-analysis was carried out in 40.5% of the SRs. One hundred and six studies (49.3%) assessed risk of bias or study quality. A total of 41 different existing tools as well as 15 tools developed by the authors themselves were used. The most commonly applied tools were the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.1%), STROBE (13.5%), and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (7.9%).Conclusion We found large heterogeneity in characteristics, reporting, and methodological aspects of SRs on prevalence and cumulative incidence data, especially when compared with other types of SRs. Newly developed or revised guidance on how to conduct and report SRs as well as instruments for critical appraisal should consider the diversity of review types.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.003

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is now general acceptance that there needs to be different types of approaches for systematic reviews looking at different types of evidence.

    “there is now general acceptance that there needs to be different types of approaches for systematic reviews looking at different types of evidence [6–8].”

    From How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study (2020) · cites this paper as [7]

  • A recently published study assessed a random sample of 215 systematic reviews of prevalence and cumulative incidence and also found great heterogeneity among the methods used to conduct these reviews.

    “a recently published study assessed a random sample of 215 systematic reviews of prevalence and cumulative incidence, and also found great heterogeneity among the methods used to conduct these reviews [7].”

    From How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study (2020) · cites this paper as [7]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hoffmann, F., Eggers, D., Pieper, D., Zeeb, H., & Allers, K.
Affiliations
  • Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (DE)
  • Witten/Herdecke University (DE)
  • University of Bremen (DE)
Corresponding author
Hoffmann, Falk
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-03
Volume
119
Pages
92-99
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.003
OpenAlex
W2993704389
Cited by
56
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
systematic reviews, prevalence, cumulative incidence, methodological heterogeneity, reporting quality, risk of bias assessment, critical appraisal tools, PROSPERO registration, meta-analysis, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, STROBE, Cochrane risk of bias tool
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Epidemiologic Research Design, Incidence, Prevalence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review