@MartinVuilleme @mjpages 100%. This is why it is important for journal editors to be or have as a reviewer ES methodology experts so that the methods can be assessed during peer review (at the very least). In an ideal world, the review of methods would be at the protocol stage but given the lack of a standardized process for protocols, that seems too far fetched at this point.

Maybe I'm being too hopeful, and the only outcome would have been signaling of conduct guides in addition to PRISMA.

@MartinVuilleme @mjpages Except in the case of evidence synthesis, what is frequently seen is the opposite - people citing PRISMA for conduct and reporting.

Could that be because they don't know about existing conduct guidelines? Anecdotally, I'd say yes.

I agree that if they had read the E&E & not simply the checklist, then they would know that PRISMA is not intended to guide conduct. But even reading the full checklist is debatable, given the poor reporting demonstrated by recent studies.

I was looking at #SystematicReview reporting standards & noticed that there is no mention or recommendation on reporting the methodological guide used/consulted to conduct the review. Is this why it is rarely reported (used)?

Could inclusion of such an item in the reporting checklists have resulted in greater awareness and understanding of the role of methodological or conducting guides for systematic reviews and other types of evidence synthesis?

I'm having Web of Science Core Collection issues. I searched "aging" in the title field, used quotation marks, and even enabled the "exact searching" function, and yet I am still getting titles that do not include the word "aging". It always worked before, but not today. Why is this happening? Have you #medlibs come across this recently?

#ExpertSearching #Help