While assessments of transparent reporting practices in meta-analyses are not uncommon in the field of health sciences interventions, they are limited in the social sciences and to our knowledge are non-existent in criminology. Modified PRISMA 2020 checklists were used to assess transparency and reproducibility of reporting for a sample of 33 meta-analyses of intervention/prevention evaluations published in scholarly journals between 2016 and 2021. Results indicate that the average rate of transparent reporting practices was 63%; adherence varied considerably across studies and subscales, with low rates of adherence for some core checklist items. Overwhelmingly, studies were not reproducible in their entirety; article word count was significantly correlated with reproducibility (r = 0.4028, p < .03). These findings suggest that substantial changes to reporting practices are necessary to meet traditional meta-analytic claims of transparency and reproducibility. Study limitations include sample size, coding instruments, and coding subjectivity.

虽然在荟萃分析中对透明报告实践的评估在健康科学干预领域并不少见，但它们在社会科学领域是有限的，据我们所知，在犯罪学领域并不存在。修改后的 PRISMA 2020 清单用于评估 2016 年至 2021 年间在学术期刊上发表的 33 项干预/预防评估荟萃分析样本的报告透明度和可重复性。结果表明，透明报告做法的平均率为 63%；不同研究和子量表的依从性差异很大，某些核心清单项目的依从率较低。压倒性地，研究不能全部重复。文章字数与可重复性显着相关（r = 0.4028，p< .03)。这些发现表明，为了满足传统的元分析关于透明度和可重复性的要求，必须对报告实践进行重大改变。研究限制包括样本量、编码工具和编码主观性。