Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews led by Peruvian authors: A scoping review

TL;DR

This study evaluates the quality of systematic reviews led by Peruvian researchers, finding common methodological issues that could affect their reliability.

Contribution

The study provides a detailed assessment of the methodological quality and characteristics of systematic reviews led by Peruvian first authors.

Findings

Peruvian-led systematic reviews often lack prior protocols and comprehensive search strategies.

Reviews in lower-impact journals and surgical interventions had significantly lower quality scores.

Most reviews were published in high-impact journals and focused on infectious diseases or dentistry.

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) worldwide suffer from methodological deficiencies, potentially biasing intervention decisions, and Peruvian SRs are no exception. Evaluating SRs led by Peruvian researchers is a crucial step to enhance quality and transparency in decision-making and to identify topics where SRs are either scarce or prioritized for research.

To describe the characteristics and assess the methodological quality of SRs with Peruvian first authors.

We conducted a scoping review within the Scopus database on January 5, 2023. We aimed to identify published SRs of interventions in which the first author had a Peruvian affiliation, published between 2013 and 2022. We evaluated the methodological quality of these SRs using the AMSTAR 2 tool. We assessed the factors associated with the AMSTAR 2 score using adjusted mean differences (aMD), including their 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI).

We identified 95 eligible SRs, with a clear upward trend. SRs were primarily published in Q1 (43.2 %) and Q2 (23.2 %) journals, predominantly affiliated with institutions in Lima (90.5 %). Areas like infectious diseases (20.0 %) and dentistry (18.9 %) were most frequent. AMSTAR 2 assessments highlighted deficiencies, with few SRs reporting prior protocols (37.9 %), comprehensive search strategies (23.2 %), explanations for excluded studies (20.0 %), adequate descriptions of included studies (38.3 %), or funding sources (19.1 %). Notably, SRs in Q4 journals (aMD: −19.7, 95 % CI: −33.8 to −5.5) and those on surgical interventions (aMD: −22.6, 95 % CI: −34.7 to −10.4) had lower AMSTAR 2 scores.

Although Peruvian-led SRs are increasingly being published, critical deficiencies are common, especially in reporting protocols, search strategies, study descriptions, and funding sources. Addressing these gaps is pivotal for enhancing the credibility and utility of these SRs in informing decision-making.

Figures