25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          As the number of systematic reviews is growing rapidly, we systematically investigate whether meta-analyses published in leading medical journals present an outline of available evidence by referring to previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

          Methods

          We searched PubMed for recent meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high impact factor journals. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified with electronic searches of keywords and by searching reference sections. We analyzed the number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that were cited, described and discussed in each recent meta-analysis. Moreover, we investigated publication characteristics that potentially influence the referencing practices.

          Results

          We identified 52 recent meta-analyses and 242 previous meta-analyses on the same topics. Of these, 66% of identified previous meta-analyses were cited, 36% described, and only 20% discussed by recent meta-analyses. The probability of citing a previous meta-analysis was positively associated with its publication in a journal with a higher impact factor (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.10) and more recent publication year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.37). Additionally, the probability of a previous study being described by the recent meta-analysis was inversely associated with the concordance of results (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.88), and the probability of being discussed was increased for previous studies that employed meta-analytic methods (odds ratio, 32.36; 95% confidence interval, 2.00 to 522.85).

          Conclusions

          Meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments do not consistently refer to and discuss findings of previous meta-analyses on the same topic. Such neglect can lead to research waste and be confusing for readers. Journals should make the discussion of related meta-analyses mandatory.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0317-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews

          Background Following publication of the PRISMA statement, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York in England began to develop an international prospective register of systematic reviews with health-related outcomes. The objectives were to reduce unplanned duplication of reviews and provide transparency in the review process, with the aim of minimizing reporting bias. Methods An international advisory group was formed and a consultation undertaken to establish the key items necessary for inclusion in the register and to gather views on various aspects of functionality. This article describes the development of the register, now called PROSPERO, and the process of registration. Results PROSPERO offers free registration and free public access to a unique prospective register of systematic reviews across all areas of health from all around the world. The dedicated web-based interface is electronically searchable and available to all prospective registrants. At the moment, inclusion in PROSPERO is restricted to systematic reviews of the effects of interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions, for which there is a health-related outcome. Ideally, registration should take place before the researchers have started formal screening against inclusion criteria but reviews are eligible as long as they have not progressed beyond the point of completing data extraction. The required dataset captures the key attributes of review design as well as the administrative details necessary for registration. Submitted registration forms are checked against the scope for inclusion in PROSPERO and for clarity of content before being made publicly available on the register, rejected, or returned to the applicant for clarification. The public records include an audit trail of major changes to planned methods, details of when the review has been completed, and links to resulting publications when provided by the authors. Conclusions There has been international support and an enthusiastic response to the principle of prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews and to the development of PROSPERO. In October 2011, PROSPERO contained 200 records of systematic reviews being undertaken in 26 countries around the world on a diverse range of interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.

            P O Seglen (1997)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research

              P O Seglen (1997)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                bartosz.helfer@gmail.com
                aaron.prosser@camh.ca
                samaramyrto@gmail.com
                john.geddes@psych.ox.ac.uk
                andrea.cipriani@psych.ox.ac.uk
                Jdavis@psych.uic.edu
                dmavridi@cc.uoi.gr
                georgia.salanti@gmail.com
                Stefan.Leucht@lrz.tu-muenchen.de
                Journal
                BMC Med
                BMC Med
                BMC Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1741-7015
                14 April 2015
                14 April 2015
                2015
                : 13
                : 82
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technical University Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaningerstr 22, 81675 Munich, Germany
                [ ]Complex Mental Illness Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada
                [ ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK
                [ ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL USA
                [ ]Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece
                [ ]Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece
                Article
                317
                10.1186/s12916-015-0317-4
                4411715
                25889502
                d077f964-bbda-41ae-a87d-7ee64fb0e72a
                © Helfer et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 24 October 2014
                : 10 March 2015
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                meta-analysis,methodology,prisma statement,research waste,systematic review
                Medicine
                meta-analysis, methodology, prisma statement, research waste, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article