|
Abstract
|
It was with great interest that I read, "A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evolution of adolescent and young adult cannabis consumption before and after legalization", still in press for the March issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health. In this article, the authors conducted a systematic review on the evolution of cannabis consumption pre-and post-implementation of recreational cannabis legislation. Although this work is timely and critical for understanding how consumption evolution may warrant improved preventative strategies that address public health impacts, important methodological concerns were noted.
First, the review stated that a search was conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, and Scopus but did not report details about the search strategy used. The authors gave a vague referral to two general search terms, 'cannabis' and 'legalization.' This resulted in a significantly limited replicability of the findings for future updates. Though the review states it followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the authors neglected to "Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers, and websites, including any filters and limits used". Second, the Scopus database contains more than 90% of Medline articles, and Medline is a component of PubMed which substantially restricts the scope of articles for the search. When using databases that index high proportions of identical articles, there are serious concerns about the comprehensiveness and methodological rigor of the systematic review. Lastly, the review contained further ambiguity in reporting the risk of bias assessment. PRISMA guidelines impart the importance of specificity in the reported number of reviewers assessing each study and whether or not it was done independently. The authors simply stated that one author evaluated each study with the 'support of co-authors' and did not address how an independent review process was secured, omitting the necessary methodological steps of the review process.
Systematic reviews amalgamate critical and current evidence-based data that directly influence prevention, intervention, and treatment. Obscurity in reviews is unethical, and omissions in methodological processes and reporting methods create misinformed policy and practice recommendations...
Language: en |