The reporting completeness of observational systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social science could be improved: a cross-sectional survey

IF 7.3 2区医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111548

Liping Guo , Xin Xing , Junjie Ren , Xinyu Huang , Sarah Miller , Howard White , Kehu Yang

{"title":"The reporting completeness of observational systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social science could be improved: a cross-sectional survey","authors":"Liping Guo , Xin Xing , Junjie Ren , Xinyu Huang , Sarah Miller , Howard White , Kehu Yang","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To evaluate and compare the reporting quality of observational systematic reviews and meta-analyses (OSRMA) published in Chinese- and English-language social science journals using the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>We searched the Social Science Core Index via Web of Science and the Chinese Social Science Core Index via China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for OSRMAs published from 2012 to 2022 (before December 2022). The process of literature search, selection, and data extraction were performed double blind.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We identified 634 OSRMAs, of which 349 were in English-language journals and 285 in Chinese-language journals. The mean reporting completeness rate was 54.6%, and reviews in English had higher reporting completeness than those in Chinese (55.2% vs 53.9%). All the reviews reported well on background, method, and conclusion, with average reporting rates of 68.1%, 65.2%, and 88.8%, respectively. However, the reporting of search strategy was ignored, with an average rate of 42.9% for reviews in English and 25.8% for reviews in Chinese, especially on the qualifications of searchers, effort to include all available studies, search software used, handling unpublished studies, and contact with authors. The reporting transparency of these reviews was statistically significantly influenced by multiple review factors, including the language of journals, year of publication, the number of authors, the reporting guideline followed, and the declaration of funding source.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>OSRMAs in social science demonstrate low reporting quality, especially in Chinese-language journals. We suggest adapting the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline to the social science context and promoting its use among researchers and reviewers in this field.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"176 ","pages":"Article 111548"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624003044","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate and compare the reporting quality of observational systematic reviews and meta-analyses (OSRMA) published in Chinese- and English-language social science journals using the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline.

Study Design and Setting

We searched the Social Science Core Index via Web of Science and the Chinese Social Science Core Index via China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for OSRMAs published from 2012 to 2022 (before December 2022). The process of literature search, selection, and data extraction were performed double blind.

Results

We identified 634 OSRMAs, of which 349 were in English-language journals and 285 in Chinese-language journals. The mean reporting completeness rate was 54.6%, and reviews in English had higher reporting completeness than those in Chinese (55.2% vs 53.9%). All the reviews reported well on background, method, and conclusion, with average reporting rates of 68.1%, 65.2%, and 88.8%, respectively. However, the reporting of search strategy was ignored, with an average rate of 42.9% for reviews in English and 25.8% for reviews in Chinese, especially on the qualifications of searchers, effort to include all available studies, search software used, handling unpublished studies, and contact with authors. The reporting transparency of these reviews was statistically significantly influenced by multiple review factors, including the language of journals, year of publication, the number of authors, the reporting guideline followed, and the declaration of funding source.

Conclusion

OSRMAs in social science demonstrate low reporting quality, especially in Chinese-language journals. We suggest adapting the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline to the social science context and promoting its use among researchers and reviewers in this field.

查看原文本刊更多论文

社会科学中观察性系统综述和荟萃分析的报告完整性有待提高：一项横断面调查。

目的采用流行病学观察性研究荟萃分析（MOOSE）指南，评估和比较中英文社会科学期刊上发表的观察性系统综述和荟萃分析（OSRMA）的报告质量：我们通过 Web of Science检索了《社会科学核心索引》（SSCI），并通过中国国家知识基础设施（CNKI）数据库检索了《中文社会科学核心索引》（CSSCI），以查找2012年至2022年（2022年12月之前）发表的OSRMA。文献检索、筛选和数据提取过程均采用双盲法：我们发现了634篇OSRMA，其中349篇发表在英文期刊上，285篇发表在中文期刊上。平均报告完整率为 54.6%，英文综述的报告完整率高于中文综述（55.2% 对 53.9%）。所有综述都很好地报告了背景、方法和结论，平均报告率分别为 68.1%、65.2% 和 88.8%。然而，英文综述的平均报告率为 42.9%，中文综述的平均报告率为 25.8%，尤其是关于检索者的资质、纳入所有可用研究的努力、所使用的检索软件、未发表研究的处理以及与作者的联系等方面的报告被忽视。这些综述的报告透明度在统计学上受多种综述因素的显著影响，包括期刊语言、发表年份、作者人数、遵循的报告指南以及资金来源声明：结论：社会科学领域的OSRMA报告质量较低，尤其是中文期刊。我们建议调整 MOOSE 指南，使其适用于社会科学领域，并在该领域的研究人员和审稿人中推广使用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

12.00

自引率

6.90%

发文量

320

审稿时长

44 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.