Original Article

Examination of the Publication Quality of Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Measles, Published Between 2009-2023 and Indexed in the PubMed Article Database

Abstract

Background: Measles, a highly contagious, yet vaccine-preventable disease, is currently experiencing a notable resurge in numbers, in developing countries. With limited reading time, physicians often rely on structured summaries, and well-prepared abstracts can encourage them to read the full article, facilitating patient care. We aimed to examine the reporting quality of article abstracts about measles.
Methods: Indirectly/directly address measles and its vaccine, scrutinizing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from 2009 to the present, and indexed in the open-access PubMed article database. With the widespread use of abstract checklists like PRISMA-A in reading systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the message intended to be conveyed can be adequately delivered to the reader by abstracts only, respecting standard rules and requirements for reporting. We used a scoring system for compliance with PRISMA-A checklist in reading measles-related reviews published over the last 15 years.
Results: On average, the abstracts were “very highly” compliant with the expected reporting criteria: The year of publication (with 2020 as the timepoint) did not make any difference in reporting quality, but structured abstract were significantly more likely to convey their message in an “expected” manner, based on PRISMA-A criteria.
Conclusion: Using standard guidelines in evaluating reporting quality of different publications and emphasizing its importance for the writers and readers, alike, will be encouraging for improved presentation of original/filtered research results, with the goal of conveying valid and reliable health-related information, in a time-efficient way.

1. Centers for Disease Control and Preven-tion. Measles history. Internet: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html. Accessed: 14.01.2025.
2. World Health Organization. History of measles vaccination. Internet: https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/history-of-vaccination/history-of-measles-vaccination. Accessed: 16.01.2025.
3. World Health Organization. Global mea-sles and rubella strategic plan 2012–2020. Internet: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241503396 . Accessed: 14.01.2024.
4. World Health Organization. Measles. In-ternet: https://www.who.int/health-topics/measles#tab=tab_3. Accessed: 15.01.2025.
5. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health. Ex-panded Immunization Program. Inter-net: https://covid19asi.saglik.gov.tr/TR-77803/genisletilmis-bagisiklama-programi-gbp.html. Accessed: 17.01.2025.
6. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health. 9–11 Month Measles Vaccination Imple-mentation. Internet: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/Mevzuat/Genel_Nitelikli_Yazi_ve_Gorusler/Kizamik_Eliminasyon_Programi.pdf. Ac-cessed: 17.01.2025.
7. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Re-views. Internet: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/. Accessed: 15.02.2025.
8. PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts: Reporting Sys-tematic Reviews in Journal and Confer-ence Abstracts. Internet: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma-abstracts/. Accessed: 15.01.2025.
9. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, et al (2013). PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting systematic reviews in journal and con-ference abstracts. PLoS Med, 10(4):e1001419.
10. Adobes Martin M, Santamans Faustino S, et al (2021). There is still room for im-provement in the completeness of ab-stract reporting according to the PRIS-MA-A checklist: a cross-sectional study on systematic reviews in periodontolo-gy. BMC Med Res Methodol, 21(33).
11. Kiriakou J, Pandis N, Fleming PS, Madia-nos P, Polychronopoulou A (2013). Re-porting quality of systematic review ab-stracts in leading oral implantology journals. J Dent, 41(12):1181-1187.
12. Higgins DM, O’Leary ST (2024). A world without measles and rubella: addressing the challenge of vaccine hesitancy. Vac-cines (Basel), 12(6):694.
13. Wilder-Smith AB, Qureshi K (2020). Resur-gence of measles in Europe: a systemat-ic review on parental attitudes and be-liefs of measles vaccine. J Epidemiol Glob Health, 10(1):46-58.
14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting system-atic reviews. BMJ, 372:n71.
15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; The PRISMA Group (2009). Pre-ferred reporting items for systematic re-views and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7):e1000097.
16. Nic Lochlainn LM, De Gier B, Van Der Maas N, et al (2019). Effect of measles vaccination in infants younger than 9 months on the immune response to sub-sequent measles vaccine doses: a sys-tematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis, 19:1246-1254.
17. Melis T, Mose A, Fikadu Y, Haile K, Habte A, Jofiro G (2024). Predictors for low coverage of uptake of second dose of measles vaccine among children in sub-Saharan Africa, 2023: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pharm Policy Pract, 17(1):2285507.
18. Mbivnjo EL, Lynch M, Huws JC (2022). Measles outbreak investigation process in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the methods and costs of contact tracing. Z Gesundh Wiss, 30:2407-2426.
Files
IssueVol 54 No 12 (2025) QRcode
SectionOriginal Article(s)
Keywords
Measles Systematic review Quality assessment
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Kara Şeyma, Cakir B. Examination of the Publication Quality of Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Measles, Published Between 2009-2023 and Indexed in the PubMed Article Database. Iran J Public Health. 2025;54(12):2660-2669.