Association of Use of GRADE, Protocol Registration, and Journal Impact Factor With Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in Rehabilitation Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

This study aimed to identify factors associated with the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals. We conducted a meta-epidemiological study as a secondary analysis of a previous study. The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework. We analyzed 219 SRs from rehabilitation journals published since 2020. We assessed reporting quality using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and methodological quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. Multiple linear regression and Spearman's correlation were used to identify factors associated with quality, including Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Multivariate analysis revealed PRISMA 2020 adherence was significantly associated with use of GRADE (β = 4.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.24-5.42), protocol registration (β = 3.40; 95% CI: 2.32-4.47), and the JIF (2023) (β = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.42-0.95). AMSTAR 2 adherence was also significantly associated with use of GRADE (β = 2.52; 95% CI: 1.88-3.17), protocol registration (β = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.44-2.70), and the JIF (2023) (β = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.14-0.45). Weak positive correlations were observed between the JIF (2023) and both PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 adherence (ρ = 0.27 and ρ = 0.22, respectively; both P < 0.01). It should be noted that these findings reflect associations and do not imply causality. To enhance the quality of SRs in rehabilitation, researchers should prioritize adherence to PRISMA 2020, particularly the use of GRADE and protocol registration, which this study identified as key associated factors.