Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews led by Peruvian authors: A scoping review.

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) worldwide suffer from methodological deficiencies, potentially biasing intervention decisions, and Peruvian SRs are no exception. Evaluating SRs led by Peruvian researchers is a crucial step to enhance quality and transparency in decision-making and to identify topics where SRs are either scarce or prioritized for research.
Objective: To describe the characteristics and assess the methodological quality of SRs with Peruvian first authors.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review within the Scopus database on January 5, 2023. We aimed to identify published SRs of interventions in which the first author had a Peruvian affiliation, published between 2013 and 2022. We evaluated the methodological quality of these SRs using the AMSTAR 2 tool. We assessed the factors associated with the AMSTAR 2 score using adjusted mean differences (aMD), including their 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI).
Results: We identified 95 eligible SRs, with a clear upward trend. SRs were primarily published in Q1 (43.2 %) and Q2 (23.2 %) journals, predominantly affiliated with institutions in Lima (90.5 %). Areas like infectious diseases (20.0 %) and dentistry (18.9 %) were most frequent. AMSTAR 2 assessments highlighted deficiencies, with few SRs reporting prior protocols (37.9 %), comprehensive search strategies (23.2 %), explanations for excluded studies (20.0 %), adequate descriptions of included studies (38.3 %), or funding sources (19.1 %). Notably, SRs in Q4 journals (aMD: -19.7, 95 % CI: -33.8 to -5.5) and those on surgical interventions (aMD: -22.6, 95 % CI: -34.7 to -10.4) had lower AMSTAR 2 scores.
Conclusions: Although Peruvian-led SRs are increasingly being published, critical deficiencies are common, especially in reporting protocols, search strategies, study descriptions, and funding sources. Addressing these gaps is pivotal for enhancing the credibility and utility of these SRs in informing decision-making.
Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Ana Brañez-Condorena, Lesly Chavez-Rimache, Naysha Becerra-Chauca, Carolina J. Delgado-Flores, and Alvaro Taype-Rondan conducted nine systematic reviews that were included in the study. However, these authors did not assess their own systematic reviews. The study selection, data extraction, and AMSTAR 2 assessments were performed by the other authors. The authors declare no additional potential conflicts of interest related to this study.
(© 2024 The Authors.)