There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
To determine the overall quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUOROMs) of randomized
controlled trials (RCTs) based on the QUOROM statement, to compare the reporting quality
of paper-based articles and Cochrane reviews, and to determine whether compliance
with the statement improves over time.
A random sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of RCTs was selected from Medline
(2000-2005).
A total of 161 articles were included. The mean QUOROM score was 12.3 (95% confidence
interval [CI]: 12.0, 12.6), which rose from 10.5 (95% CI: 8.8, 12.1) in 2000 to 13.0
(95% CI: 12.2, 13.8) in 2005. The mean QUOROM scores of Cochrane reviews and paper-based
articles were 14.2 (95% CI: 13.9, 14.5) and 11.7 (95% CI: 11.3, 12.1), respectively.
Compared with the paper-based articles, the Cochrane reviews had better reporting
quality in the abstract section, while the quality of their trial flows was poor.
The fulfillment of most QUOROM items improved with time. A linear relation of the
QUOROM score with time was revealed.
The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves with time. The reporting quality of
Cochrane reviews is better compared with paper-based articles. Room still exists for
improvements in the reporting quality of both Cochrane and paper-based articles.