Sistematik Derleme Özetlerinin PRISMA 2020 Özet Kontrol Listesi ile Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 48 Sayı: 2, 268 - 276, 11.02.2026

Murat Özbek , Ömür Güngör , Ayşe Sultan Kaya , Nazan Akel , Meltem Şengelen

https://doi.org/10.20515/otd.1737961

https://izlik.org/JA65GY76BF

Öz

Sistematik derleme özetleri, okuyucuların, hakemlerin, editörlerin ve araştırmacıların sınırlı zamanını göz önünde bulundurarak açık, anlaşılır ve standartlaştırılmış olmalıdır. 2013 yılında, sistematik derleme özetleri için özel olarak geliştirilmiş, “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)” kontrol listesinin değiştirilmiş bir versiyonu yayımlandı. Bu çalışmanın amacı, halk sağlığı, çevre ve iş sağlığı dergilerindeki sistematik derleme özetlerini PRISMA özet kontrol listesini kullanarak değerlendirmektir. Çalışmada PubMed’de 2017–2021 yılları arasında en yüksek SCImago sıralamasına sahip yedi dergiye odaklanıp sistematik olmayan derlemeler ve PubMed’de dizinlenmemiş yayınlar hariç tutularak toplam 96 özet analiz edilmiştir. Analiz, 12 PRISMA kontrol listesi öğesini, atıf durumunu, yayın yılını, yazarın kurumunun ait olduğu ülkeyi, yazar sayısını ve kelime sayısını kapsamaktadır. Özetlerin yarısından fazlasının 300 kelimeyi aştığı belirlenmiştir. Medyan yazar sayısı yedi olup yazarların bağlı olduğu kurumların çoğunlukla Birleşik Krallık ve ABD’de bulunduğu görülmüştür. PRISMA’ya yapılan atıflar, 2017–2019 yılları arasında %10–15 seviyesindeyken, 2020’de %65’e yükselmiştir. Başlık, amaçlar, uygunluk kriterleri, bilgi kaynakları, bulgu sentezi (yöntemler ve bulgular bölümlerinde) ve yorumlama gibi kontrol listesindeki bazı öğeler, özetlerin yarısından fazlasında uygun şekilde raporlanmıştır. Kontrol listesindeki 12 öğenin her biri 12 puan üzerinden değerlendirildiğinde, ortalama puanların 6,53 ile 7,50 arasında değiştiği görülmüştür. Kelime sayısı ile PRISMA özet puanı arasında orta düzeyde pozitif bir korelasyon (r=0,494, p<0,001), etki faktörü ile PRISMA özet puanı arasında ise zayıf bir pozitif korelasyon (r=0,259, p=0,012) tespit edilmiştir. Halk Sağlığı, Çevre ve İş Sağlığı alanındaki yüksek etkili dergilerde PRISMA 2020 Özet Kontrol Listesi’ne uyumun yeterince yüksek olmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Özetler , Kontrol listesi , İş sağlığı , PRISMA , Halk sağlığı , Sistematik inceleme

Etik Beyan

Mevcut çalışmada insan ile ilgili herhangi bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Veriler, açık erişimli bir veri tabanı olan PubMed’den elde edildiği için ek bir izin gerekmemektedir. Çalışma, etik kurul onayına tabi değildir.

Destekleyen Kurum

Yazarlar, bu çalışmanın herhangi bir finansal destek almadığını beyan etmişlerdir.

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma 13-18 Aralık 2021 tarihlerinde Türkiye’de çevrim içi olarak düzenlenen 5. Uluslararası 23. Ulusal Halk Sağlığı Kongresi’nde özet sözlü bildiri olarak sunulmuştur. Yazarlar, yalnızca dil düzenlemesi amacıyla Microsoft tarafından geliştirilen yapay zekâ destekli bir araç olan Microsoft Copilot’un kullanımını kabul etmektedir. Kavramsal, analitik veya metodolojik herhangi bir katkı sağlanmamıştır.

Assessment of Systematic Review Abstracts with PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts Checklist

https://izlik.org/JA65GY76BF

Öz

Systematic review abstracts must be clear, understandable, and standardized to accommodate the limited time of readers, reviewers, editors, and researchers. In 2013, a modified version of the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)” checklist, specifically developed for systematic review abstracts, was released. The aim of this study was to evaluate systematic review abstracts published in journals focused on public health, environmental health, and occupational health, utilizing the PRISMA abstract checklist. It focused on the top seven SCImago-ranked journals (2017–2021) in PubMed, analyzing 96 abstracts while excluding non-systematic reviews and non-PubMed-indexed publications. The analysis covered 12 PRISMA checklist items, citation status, publication year, author affiliation, number of authors, and word count. Over half of the abstracts exceeded 300 words. The median number of authors was seven, with corresponding institutions mostly in the UK and USA. PRISMA citations in abstracts rose from 10–15% (2017–2019) to 65% in 2020. Several checklist items—including title, aims, eligibility criteria, information sources, result synthesis (in methods and results), and interpretation—were appropriately reported in over half of the abstracts. When each of the 12 items of the checklist was scored out of 12 points, the mean scores ranged between 6.53 and 7.50. A moderate positive correlation was found between word count and PRISMA abstract score (r=0.494, p<0.001), whereas impact factor showed a weaker positive correlation (r=0.259, p=0.012). The compliance with the PRISMA 2020 Abstracts Checklist is not sufficiently high in high-impact Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health journals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Abstracts , Checklist , Occupational health , PRISMA , Public health , Systematic review

Etik Beyan

The current study has no study with human. Since the data were obtained from PubMed, an open-access database, no additional permission was required. The study is not subject to ethics committee approval.

Destekleyen Kurum

The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

Teşekkür

This study was presented as a summary oral presentation at the 5th International 23rd National Public Health Congress, which was held online in Türkiye from December 13 to 18, 2021. The authors acknowledge the use of Microsoft Copilot, an AI-powered tool developed by Microsoft, solely for language editing. No conceptual, analytical, or methodological assistance was provided.

Kaynakça

• 1. Curtin University [Internet]. [cited 2025 May 28]. Review types - Systematic & scoping reviews. Available from: https://researchtoolkit.library.curtin.edu.au/searching/systematic-and-scoping-reviews/review-types/
• 2. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
• 3. Kuo LT, Shao SC, Chi CC. Ten Essential Steps for Performing a Systematic Review: A Quick Tutorial. Dermatol Sin. 2022 Dec;40(4):204.
• 4. Mulrow CD. The Medical Review Article: State of the Science. Ann Intern Med. 1987 Mar;106(3):485-8.
• 5. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials. N Engl J Med. 1987 Feb 19;316(8):450-5.
• 6. PRISMA [Internet]. [cited 2025 May 28]. History and development of PRISMA. Available from: https://www.prisma-statement.org/history-and-development
• 7. Negrini S, Levack W, Gimigliano F, Arienti C, Villafañe JH, Kiekens C. The Struggle for Evidence in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine: Publication Rate of Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews Is Growing More Than in Other Therapeutic Fields. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Apr;98(4):258-265.
• 8. Smela B, Toumi M, Świerk K, Gawlik K, Clay E, Boyer L. Systematic Literature Reviews Over the Years. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2023 Aug 21;11(1):2244305.
• 9. Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, Helbach J, Hoffmann A, Mathes T, vd. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Oct;138:1-11.
• 10. Alspach JG. Writing for Publication 101: Why the Abstract Is So Important. Crit Care Nurse. 2017 Aug;37(4):12-5.
• 11. Garcia DCF, Gattaz CC, Gattaz NC. The Relevance of Title, Abstract and Keywords for Scientific Paper Writing. Rev Adm Contemp. 2019 Jun;23(3):1-9.
• 12. Cohen JF, Deeks JJ, Hooft L, Salameh JP, Korevaar DA, Gatsonis C, vd. Preferred Reporting Items for Journal and Conference Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (prisma-Dta for Abstracts): Checklist, Explanation, and Elaboration. BMJ. 2021 Mar 15;372:n265.
• 13. PRISMA Statement [Internet]. [cited 2025 May 28]. Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
• 14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
• 15. PRISMA 2020 Translations [Internet]. [cited 2025 May 28]. Available from: https://www.prisma-statement.org/translations
• 16. McEVoy N, Tume LN, Trapani J. What Are Publication Reporting Checklists and Why Are They so Important? Nurs Crit Care. 2022 May;27(3):291-293.
• 17. Endorse PRISMA [Internet]. [cited 2025 May 28]. Available from: https://www.prisma-statement.org/endorsement
• 18. SCImago. SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank [Internet]. [cited 2025 May 28]. Available from: http://www.scimagojr.com
• 19. SJR [Internet]. [cited 2025 May 28]. Journal Rankings on Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health. Available from: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=2739&type=j
• 20. PRISMA Endorsers - Journals [Internet]. [cited 2025 May 28]. Available from: https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-endorsers
• 21. 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 Mar 18;31:18.
• 22. Maticic K, Krnic Martinic M, Puljak L. Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Feb 14;19(1):32.
• 23. Saric L, Dosenovic S, Saldanha IJ, Jelicic Kadic A, Puljak L. Conference abstracts describing systematic reviews on pain were selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jan;117:1-8.
• 24. Pulikkotil SJ, Jayaraman J, Nagendrababu V. Quality of abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019 Oct;20(5):383-391.
• 25. Rice DB, Kloda LA, Shrier I, Thombs BD. Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 18;6(11):e012867.
• 26. Vásquez-Cárdenas J, Zapata-Noreña Ó, Carvajal-Flórez Á, Barbosa-Liz DM, Giannakopoulos NN, Faggion CM. Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Oct;156(4):442-452.e12.
• 27. Bigna JJR, Um LN, Nansseu JRN. A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 13;5(1):174.
• 28. Li T, Hua F, Dan S, Zhong Y, Levey C, Song Y. Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in operative dentistry: An assessment using the PRISMA for Abstracts guidelines. J Dent. 2020 Nov;102:103471.
• 29. Seehra J, Fleming PS, Polychronopoulou A, Pandis N. Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals. Eur J Oral Sci. 2013 Apr;121(2):57-62.
• 30. O’Donohoe TJ, Dhillon R, Bridson TL, Tee J. Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts published in leading neurosurgical journals: A research on research study. Neurosurgery. 2019 Jul 1;85(1):1-10.
• 31. Helbach J, Hoffmann F, Pieper D, Allers K. Reporting According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) Depends on Abstract Length. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Feb;154:167-177.
• 32. Jiancheng W, Jinhui T, Lin H, Yuxia M, Juxia Z. Has the Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts in Nursing Improved Since the Release of PRISMA for Abstracts? A Survey of High-Profile Nursing Journals. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2020 Apr;17(2):108-117.