## 2 Background and Related Work
### Overview of Systematic Reviews
The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline yields a more concise and transparent reporting than other guidelines [17]. The PRISMA reporting guideline is the result of a consensus of experts in systematic reviews [5]. As [PERSON] et al. [2; 4; 11] further explained, the PRISMA statement is a minimalistic set of evidence-based items that systematic reviewers can use to report systematic reviews as well as meta-analyses. The PRISMA guideline provides recommendations that help address poor writing of systematic reviews by helping systematic reviewers to transparently, completely and accurately report the rationale for conducting the review, what they did to complete the review, and their findings. [PERSON] et al. [2; 4; 11] stated that PRISMA was initially released in 2009 as a 27-item checklist, and it was then referred to as PRISMA 2009. Since then, PRISMA's recommendations have been widely adopted by various areas such as the health and medical area, social science, education, and computer science. Besides, PRISMA has been endorsed by more than two hundred journals as well as systematic review organizations. As of August 2020, PRISMA has yielded citations in more than sixty thousand reports. [PERSON] et al. [2; 4; 11] and [PERSON] et al. [31] further explained that PRISMA has evolved over time and its updated guidelines embody recent methodological and technological advances, review processes related terminology, and publishing landscape opportunities. The PRISMA 2020 statement is the most recent release of PRISMA, and it replaces PRISMA 2009 that should no longer be used. The PRISMA 2020 refines the structure as well as the presentation of the PRISMA 2009 checklist and includes new reporting guidance that embodies the recent progress about systematic review methodology and terminology. The PRISMA 2020 comprises a 27-item checklist focusing on reviews reporting as well as a 12-item checklist focusing on the reporting of reviews' abstracts. To properly report a systematic review, systematic reviewers should rely on both checklists. The PRISMA 2020 statement 27-item checklist provides some recommendations on how to report the following sections of a systematic review: the title (1 item), abstract (1 item), introduction (2 items), methods (11 items), results (7 items), discussion (1 item), and other information (4 items). Table 1 in the Appendix A shows the PRISMA 2020 12-item checklist for abstracts. Table 2 in the Appendix A shows an excerpt adapted from the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist. The corresponding 12 abstract items are associated to the item 2, i.e., the abstract item, of the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist. [PERSON] et al. [2; 4] provided a description of both checklists together with their original phrasing. The literature also describes several reporting procedures that can be used to conduct and write systematic (literature) reviews. They are notably discussed in [PERSON] [32], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [33], [PERSON] et al. [26; 34], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [35], [PERSON] [36], and [PERSON] [30]. However, despite the availability of reporting guidelines/procedures to support clear, reproducible as well as transparent reporting, systematic reviewers are not required to adhere to them [21]. This may result in systematic reviews that lack methodological rigor, yield low-credible findings, and may mislead decision-makers [12; 13]. Still, the software engineering research community has not proposed measures to assess the reporting quality of existing reviews to find out which ones are the most appropriate to support decision-making in the software engineering field.