Systematic Reviews on Human–Animal Interaction Topics: A Look at Reporting Practices

Mirroring the patterns of primary research, there is a significant and growing increase in the number of systematic reviews (SRs) in the human–animal interaction (HAI) field. This article describes the content of published SRs and compares their reporting practices against the rigorous, prescribed methodologies associated with quality SRs. This study was designed to describe the characteristics of HAI SRs in terms of publication patterns, human subjects, animal(s) of interest, and outcomes and determine the extent to which they follow recommended practices for transparency and reproducibility. Thirteen bibliographic databases were searched for articles containing both an HAI-related term and an SR term. We screened 766 articles for relevance and coded 110 of them for desired data. The majority of reviews (54.55%) were published between 2019 and 2022. Most (65.45%) did not specify the age of human populations studied, but specified ages included children or adolescents, adults, and older adults. A range of human conditions was studied, including, among others, dementia, autism spectrum disorder, and chronic illness. A slight majority of studies (51.82%) did not specify the animal species to be studied, but those that did included, singly or in combination, dogs, horses, robotic animals, and farm or food animals. The majority of studies (63.63%) referred to PRISMA or other methodological guidelines. Across all studies, 163 different databases were searched, with PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL among the most frequently used. Few studies (18.18%) referred to consultation with an information professional. A slight majority (52.72%) provided a full search strategy for at least one database. Most (67.27%) did not include gray literature searches, and most (72.72%) included an assessment of quality or risk of bias for the studies included in their review. In light of their importance in informing practices and policies, and because they are viewed as the most reliable study type, SR reporting in the HAI field should reflect best practices. There is room for improvement in reporting among HAI SRs. Suggestions are offered for ways HAI educators and journal editors may improve SR methodologies and reporting in the field.