Abstract
This article describes the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) in Psychology. The inclusion criteria were self-declared SRs in all branches of Psychology, published between 2019 and 2020. The search was performed in the PsycINFO and MEDLINE databases, from which 2487 records were identified, and 305 papers selected. There were many discrepancies in the reporting of Psychology SRs. Some PRISMA items, such as self-identification as an SR, description of the aim and the inclusion criteria, specification of the databases, and the description of the search and selection process using a flow diagram were reported in more than 90% of the SRs. Other items had lower coverage, such as the specification of the PICO framework, presentation of the complete search strategies, mention of the reporting guidelines, description of the exclusion criteria, performance of a risk of bias assessment, and analysis of the quality of the evidence, among others. The study highlights the need to improve the planning, performance and reporting of SR in Psychology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
