Evidence-Based Software Engineering: A Checklist-Based Approach to Assess the Abstracts of Reviews Self-Identifying as Systematic Reviews

A systematic review allows synthesizing the state of knowledge related to a clearly formulated research question as well as understanding the correlations between exposures and outcomes. A systematic review usually leverages explicit, reproducible, and systematic methods that allow reducing the potential bias that may arise when conducting a review. When properly conducted, a systematic review yields reliable findings from which conclusions and decisions can be made. Systematic reviews are increasingly popular and have several stakeholders to whom they allow making recommendations on how to act based on the review findings. They also help support future research prioritization. A systematic review usually has several components. The abstract is one of the most important parts of a review because it usually reflects the content of the review. It may be the only part of the review read by most readers when forming an opinion on a given topic. It may help more motivated readers decide whether the review is worth reading or not. But abstracts are sometimes poorly written and may, therefore, give a misleading and even harmful picture of the review’s contents. To assess the extent to which a review’s abstract is well constructed, we used a checklist-based approach to propose a measure that allows quantifying the systematicity of review abstracts i.e., the extent to which they exhibit good reporting quality. Experiments conducted on 151 reviews published in the software engineering field showed that the abstracts of these reviews had suboptimal systematicity