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.