Volume 31, Number 1 (1-2017)                   Med J Islam Repub Iran 2017 | Back to browse issues page




DOI: 10.18869/mjiri.31.18

XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Kazerani M, Davoudian A, Zayeri F, Soori H. Assessing abstracts of Iranian systematic reviews and meta-analysis indexed in WOS and Scopus using PRISMA . Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017; 31 (1) :104-109
URL: http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3501-en.html

Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. , kazerani.m@gmail.com
Abstract:   (444 Views)

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis have significant advantages over conventional reviews in that all available data should be presented.  This study aimed to evaluate Iranian systematic reviews and meta-analysis abstracts indexed in WOS and Scopus during 2003-2012 based on PRISMA checklist.
   Methods: This is an analytical study. We evaluated 46 article abstracts indexed in WOS, 89 article abstracts indexed in Scopus and 158 article abstracts indexed in WOS and Scopus both (overlapped group). The quality of the abstracts was evaluated according to the PRISMA checklist for abstracts. Some indicators including distribution per year, total citation, average citations per year, average citations per documents and average citations per year in each article were determined through searching the WOS and Scopus Databases’ analytical section. Then, the correlations between the abstract's PRISMA scores, average citations per year, and publication year were calculated.
  Results: The abstract’s quality is not desirable as far as the PRISMA criteria are concerned. In other words, none of the articles’ abstracts is in line with the PRISMA items. The average of scores of the current study was 5.9 while the maximum score was 12. The PRISMA criteria showed the highest compliance with “Objectives” (98.6%), the second highest with “Synthesis of result” (85%) and “Title” (80.2%) and the lowest compliance with “Registration” (2%). There was a positive correlation between the compliance of PRISMA score and the average citations per year while there was a negative correlation between PRISMA score and the publication year.
   Conclusion: It seems that the suggested criteria for reporting Iranian systematic reviews and meta-analysis are not considered adequately by the writers and even scientific journal editors.
 

Full-Text [PDF 854 kb]   (119 Downloads)    

Send email to the article author