A relatively novel method of appraisal, methodological reviews (MRs) are used to synthesize information on the methods used in health research. There are currently no guidelines available to inform the reporting of MRs. This pilot review aimed to determine the feasibility of a full review and the need for reporting guidance for methodological reviews. Search strategy: We conducted a search of PubMed, restricted to 2017 to include the most recently published studies, using different search terms often used to describe methodological reviews: “literature survey” OR “meta-epidemiologic* review” OR “meta-epidemiologic* survey” OR “methodologic* review” OR “methodologic* survey” OR “systematic survey.” Data extraction: Study characteristics including country, nomenclature, number of included studies, search strategy, a priori protocol use, and sampling methods were extracted in duplicate and summarized. Outcomes: Primary feasibility outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of the search terms (criteria for success of feasibility set at sensitivity and specificity of ≥ 70%). Analysis: The estimates are reported as a point estimate (95% confidence interval). Two hundred thirty-six articles were retrieved and 31 were included in the final analysis. The most accurate search term was “meta-epidemiological” (sensitivity [Sn] 48.39; 95% CI 31.97–65.16; specificity [Sp] 97.56; 94.42–98.95). The majority of studies were published by authors from Canada (n = 12, 38.7%), and Japan and USA (n = 4, 12.9% each). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of included studies in the MRs was 77 (13–1127). Reporting of a search strategy was done in most studies (n = 23, 74.2%). The use of a pre-published protocol (n = 7, 22.6%) or a justifiable sampling method (n = 5, 16.1%) occurred rarely. Using the MR nomenclature identified, it is feasible to build a comprehensive search strategy and conduct a full review. Given the variation in reporting practices and nomenclature attributed to MRs, there is a need for guidance on standardized and transparent reporting of MRs. Future guideline development would likely include stakeholders from Canada, USA, and Japan.

中文翻译：

---

绘制审查方法的研究的命名、方法和报告：一个试点方法审查。

一种相对新颖的评估方法，方法学审查 (MR) 用于综合有关健康研究中使用的方法的信息。目前没有可用于告知 MR 报告的指南。该试点审查旨在确定全面审查的可行性以及方法审查报告指南的必要性。搜索策略：我们对 PubMed 进行了搜索，仅限于 2017 年，以包括最近发表的研究，使用不同的搜索词经常用于描述方法学评论：“文献调查”或“meta-epidemiologic* review”或“meta-epidemiologic*调查”或“方法*审查”或“方法*调查”或“系统调查”。数据提取：研究特征，包括国家、命名法、纳入研究的数量、搜索策略、先验协议使用、抽样方法一式两份提取并总结。结果：主要的可行性结果是搜索词的敏感性和特异性（敏感性和特异性≥70% 的可行性成功标准）。分析：估计值报告为点估计值（95% 置信区间）。检索到236篇文章，最终分析31篇。最准确的搜索词是“元流行病学”（敏感性 [Sn] 48.39；95% CI 31.97–65.16；特异性 [Sp] 97.56；94.42–98.95）。大多数研究由来自加拿大（n = 12, 38.7%）、日本和美国（n = 4, 各 12.9%）的作者发表。MR 中纳入研究的中位数（四分位距 [IQR]）为 77（13-1127）。大多数研究报告了搜索策略（n = 23, 74.2%）。很少使用预先发布的方案（n = 7, 22.6%）或合理的抽样方法（n = 5, 16.1%）。使用确定的 MR 命名法，建立全面的搜索策略并进行全面审查是可行的。鉴于 MR 的报告实践和命名方式存在差异，因此需要就 MR 的标准化和透明报告提供指导。未来的指南制定可能包括来自加拿大、美国和日本的利益相关者。需要就 MR 的标准化和透明报告提供指导。未来的指南制定可能包括来自加拿大、美国和日本的利益相关者。需要就 MR 的标准化和透明报告提供指导。未来的指南制定可能包括来自加拿大、美国和日本的利益相关者。