Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of systematic reviews published in six major medical journals from July 2012 through June 2013

From: Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis

Review characteristics All interventional reviews (n=117) Searched a registry (n=41) No registry search described (n=76)
Journal, n (%)    
  Annals of Internal Medicine 41 16 (39) 25 (61)
  BMJ 37 13 (35) 24 (65)
  The Journal of the American Medical Association 11 4 (36) 7 (64)
  The Lancet 12 4 (33) 8 (67)
  The New England Journal of Medicine 1 0 (0) 1 (100)
  PLOS Medicine 15 4 (27) 11 (73)
Funding source, n (%)a    
  Industry 38 17 (45) 21 (55)
  NIHb/government 81 29 (36) 52 (64)
  Other 32 11 (34) 21 (66)
  None 13 4 (31) 9 (69)
Manuscript reported PRISMA compliance 38 18 (47) 20 (53)
Number of individual studies included in review, median (range) 30 (5–639) 35 (5–639) 29 (5–379)
  1. aReviews with multiple funding sources are listed within all relevant categories; totals therefore add to more than 100%.
  2. bNational Institutes of Health.