Reporting and methodological qualities of systematic reviews in rehabilitation journals following an update of the PRISMA 2020 statement: A cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study

QuestionsHow has the use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement improved the quality of reporting and methodology in systematic reviews (SRs) in rehabilitation journals?DesignCross-sectional meta-epidemiologic study.ParticipantsWe selected SRs with pairwise meta-analyses on the effects of health interventions, which were published in rehabilitation journals in 2020, 2021, and 2022 using MEDLINE (PubMed). We defined exposure as use of the PRISMA 2020 statement. A control group consisted of SRs that did not use the PRISMA 2020 statement.Outcome measuresThe PRISMA 2020, PRISMA 2020 for abstracts, and assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 items.ResultsWe identified 13381 articles after conducting a search on April 2, 2023. We included 100 articles each that used and those that did not use the PRISMA 2020 statement. The PRISMA 2020 statement did not lead to any major improvement, and only a slight improvement of 9.8% (4/41) was observed when compared with those that did not use the PRISMA 2020 statement. Similarly, no item improved in the PRISMA 2020 for abstracts, and only 5.6% (1/18) improved in the AMSTAR 2 items.ConclusionThis study showed that the use of the PRISMA 2020 statement did not result in any major improvements; however, only a slight improvement was observed in the reporting and methodological qualities of SRs in rehabilitation journals. Researchers should adhere to each item in the PRISMA 2020 statement in SRs published in rehabilitation journals.Registrationosf.io https://osf.io/uca5n/