Background Systematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of
published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to …

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly popular to a wide range of
stakeholders. We set out to capture a representative cross-sectional sample of published …

Background Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has
become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic …

ContextPublication of research protocols minimizes bias by explicitly stating a priori
hypotheses and methods without prior knowledge of results. MethodsWe conducted a …

Objectives To evaluate how often reproducible research practices, which allow others to
recreate the findings of studies, given the original data, are used in systematic reviews (SRs) …

Abstract Background When conducting an Overviews of Reviews on health-related topics, it
is unclear which combination of bibliographic databases authors should use for searching …

Abstract Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are useful tools in synthesising the available
evidence, but high numbers of overlapping SRs are also discussed in the context of …

Abstract Rationale The journal Social Science & Medicine recently adopted the Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009) as …

Objective To explore trends in published protocols of systematic reviews (SRs) and to
analyze how SRs with published protocols differ from those without. Study Design and …

Background Systematic reviews summarize all pertinent evidence on a defined health
question. They help clinical scientists to direct their research and clinicians to keep updated …