Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals

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, beta = 2 center dot 48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0 center dot 73-4 center dot 27] and secondary analysis (fully and partially reported vs. not reported, beta = 1 center dot 28, 95% CI 0 center dot 06-2 center dot 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 (beta = 10 center dot 05, 95% CI 2 center dot 89-17 center dot 2) and secondary analysis (beta = 8 center dot 87, 95% CI 3 center dot 84-13 center dot 9). Conclusions SR reporting in dermatology journals is often inadequate but improving over time; protocol registration is associated with better reporting.