Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) using PRISMA increases transparency and reproducibility; adherence in the dermatology literature has not been assessed. OBJECTIVES: To assess selected, primarily methodological items from the PRISMA reporting guideline among SRs published in dermatology journals. METHODS: We reviewed SRs published from 2013 to 2017 in the five highest-impact dermatology journals according to the Science Citation Index. We descriptively assessed reporting of selected PRISMA items, the proportion of PRISMA items fully and partially reported, and whether SRs described using a preregistered protocol. We used univariate and multivariate linear regression to evaluate associations between exposures (year, protocol registration, funding source, type of included study, disease and journal), and outcomes (proportion of PRISMA items fully reported, and fully and partially reported, for each SR). RESULTS: We identified 136 SRs. All had more than one inadequately reported PRISMA item. Protocol registration (73%) and risk of bias (38%) were most often unreported. Reporting improved over time in our primary multivariate analysis [fully reported vs. partially and not reported, β = 2·48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·73-4·27] and secondary analysis (fully and partially reported vs. not reported, β = 1·28, 95% CI 0·06-2·50). Only 15% (20 of 136) of SRs stated that their protocols were registered; this was associated with PRISMA adherence to the evaluated PRISMA items in our primary multivariate analysis (β = 10·05, 95% CI 2·89-17·2) and secondary analysis (β = 8·87, 95% CI 3·84-13·9). CONCLUSIONS: SR reporting in dermatology journals is often inadequate but improving over time; protocol registration is associated with better reporting. What's already known about this topic? No studies to date have examined the adherence of dermatology systematic reviews (SRs) to reporting guidelines, such as PRISMA. In other medical fields, reporting is variable with some improvement in adherence to reporting standards over time. What does this study add? Among SRs published in five dermatology journals from 2013 to 2017, all (n = 136) had at least one inadequately reported PRISMA item, while 93% (127 of 136) had at least one fully nonreported item. Reporting improved over time and SRs that stated use of a preregistered protocol were associated with better reporting. Several items remain commonly underreported in dermatology SRs. Authors, reviewers, journal editors and editorial committees should encourage preregistration of SR protocols and improved SR reporting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.655 | 0.880 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.052 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".