How to Cite
Abstract
Introduction Systematic reviews depend on thorough search strategies, yet reproducibility remains inconsistent in medicine and surgery journals. It is unknown how dermatology journals are affected. In our cross-sectional study, we aim to analyze systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology journals to determine factors influencing the inclusion of reproducible search strategies. Understanding these aspects will enhance the transparency and reliability of published studies. Methods We identified the top five dermatology journals using Google Scholar Metrics h-5 index. On January 12th, 2024, we searched PubMed for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2018 and 2022. We coded the minimum requirements of a reproducible search strategy: database name, range of search, search terms with boolean operators, and limitations. Additionally, support from clinical librarians and adherence to reporting guidelines were included in the assessment. Results In a masked, duplicate fashion, we screened 794 studies for titles and abstracts, then 290 studies for full text. Two hundred eighty-four studies from 5 dermatology journals were included. Most studies included the first and last dates searched (69 and 61%, respectively) and specific search terms (91%). In 46% of the studies, limits were employed in the search strategy. According to our coding standards, 50% of the studies were able to provide full and reproducible search strategies. Conclusion Although recommendations for comprehensive search strategy reporting, half of the included articles in our study lacked reproducibility. Further investigation is warranted to explore methods for enhancing reproducibility of search strategies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.