Dataset Information

Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: An up-to-date systematic review is important for researchers to decide whether to embark on new research or continue supporting ongoing studies. The aim of this study is to examine the time taken between the last search, submission, acceptance and publication dates of systematic reviews published in nursing journals.Nursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports were first identified. Thereafter, systematic reviews published in these journals in 2014 were extracted from three databases. The quality of the systematic reviews were evaluated by the AMSTAR. The last search, submission, acceptance, online publication, full publication dates and other characteristics of the systematic reviews were recorded. The time taken between the five dates was then computed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the time differences; non-parametric statistics were used to examine the association between the time taken from the last search and full publication alongside other potential factors, including the funding support, submission during holiday periods, number of records retrieved from database, inclusion of meta-analysis, and quality of the review.A total of 107 nursing journals were included in this study, from which 1070 articles were identified through the database search. After screening for eligibility, 202 systematic reviews were included in the analysis. The quality of these reviews was low with the median score of 3 out of 11. A total of 172 (85.1%), 72 (35.6%), 153 (75.7%) and 149 (73.8%) systematic reviews provided their last search, submission, acceptance and online published dates respectively. The median numbers of days taken from the last search to acceptance and to full publication were, respectively, 393 (IQR: 212-609) and 669 (427-915) whereas that from submission to full publication was 365 (243-486). Moreover, the median number of days from the last search to submission and from submission to online publication were 167.5 (53.5-427) and 153 (92-212), respectively. No significant association were revealed between the time lag and those potential factors.The median time from the last search to acceptance for systematic reviews published in nursing journals was 393 days. Readers for systematic reviews are advised to check the time taken from the last search date of the reviews in order to ensure that up-to-date evidence is consulted for effective clinical decision-making.

SUBMITTER: Tam WWS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5702238 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study.

Tam Wilson W S WWS Lo Kenneth K H KKH Khalechelvam Parames P Seah Joey J Goh Shawn Y S SYS

BMC medical research methodology 20171125 1

<h4>Background</h4>An up-to-date systematic review is important for researchers to decide whether to embark on new research or continue supporting ongoing studies. The aim of this study is to examine the time taken between the last search, submission, acceptance and publication dates of systematic reviews published in nursing journals.<h4>Methods</h4>Nursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports were first identified. Thereafter, systematic reviews published in these journals in 2014 were ...[more]

PMID: 29178832

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 led to a rapid acceleration in the number of systematic reviews. Readers need to know how up to date evidence is when selecting reviews to inform decisions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate how easily the currency of COVID-19 systematic reviews published early in the pandemic could be determined and how up to date these reviews were at the time of publication.MethodsWe searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses relevant to COVID-19 added to PubMed in July 2020 and January 2021, including any that were first published as preprints. We extracted data on the date of search, number of included studies, and date first published online. For the search date, we noted the format of the date and where in the review this was reported. A sample of non-COVID-19 systematic reviews from November 2020 served as a comparator.ResultsWe identified 246 systematic reviews on COVID-19. In the abstract of these reviews, just over half (57%) reported the search date (day/month/year or month/year) while 43% failed to report any date. When the full text was considered, the search date was missing from 6% of reviews. The median time from last search to publication online was 91 days (IQR 63-130). Time from search to publication was similar for the subset of 15 rapid or living reviews (92 days) but shorter for the 29 reviews published as preprints (37 days). The median number of studies or publications included per review was 23 (IQR 12-40). In the sample of 290 non-COVID SRs, around two-thirds (65%) reported the search date while a third (34%) did not include any date in the abstract. The median time from search to publication online was 253 days (IQR 153-381) and each review included a median of 12 studies (IQR 8-21).ConclusionsDespite the context of the pandemic and the need to easily ascertain the currency of systematic reviews, reporting of the search date information for COVID-19 reviews was inadequate. Adherence to reporting guidelines would improve the transparency and usefulness of systematic reviews to users.

Project description:BackgroundA high-quality search strategy is considered an essential component of systematic reviews but many do not contain reproducible search strategies. It is unclear if low reproducibility spans medical disciplines, is affected by librarian/search specialist involvement or has improved with increased awareness of reporting guidelines.ObjectivesTo examine the reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews published in Pediatrics, Surgery or Cardiology journals in 2012 and determine rates and predictors of including a reproducible search strategy.MethodsWe identified all systematic reviews published in 2012 in the ten highest impact factor journals in Pediatrics, Surgery and Cardiology. Each search strategy was coded to indicate what elements were reported and whether the overall search was reproducible. Reporting and reproducibility rates were compared across disciplines and we measured the influence of librarian/search specialist involvement, discipline or endorsement of a reporting guideline on search reproducibility.Results272 articles from 25 journals were included. Reporting of search elements ranged widely from 91% of articles naming search terms to 33% providing a full search strategy and 22% indicating the date the search was executed. Only 22% of articles provided at least one reproducible search strategy and 13% provided a reproducible strategy for all databases searched in the article. Librarians or search specialists were reported as involved in 17% of articles. There were strong disciplinary differences on the reporting of search elements. In the multivariable analysis, only discipline (Pediatrics) was a significant predictor of the inclusion of a reproducible search strategy.ConclusionsDespite recommendations to report full, reproducible search strategies, many articles still do not. In addition, authors often report a single strategy as covering all databases searched, further decreasing reproducibility. Further research is needed to determine how disciplinary culture may encourage reproducibility and the role that journal editors and peer reviewers could play.

Project description:OBJECTIVES: To identify all systematic reviews (SRs) published in the domain of oral health research and describe them in terms of their epidemiological and descriptive characteristics. DESIGN: Cross sectional, descriptive study. METHODS: An electronic search of seven databases was performed from inception through May 2012; bibliographies of relevant publications were also reviewed. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were oral health SRs defined as therapeutic or non-therapeutic investigations that studied a topic or an intervention related to dental, oral or craniofacial diseases/disorders. Data were extracted from all the SRs based on a number of epidemiological and descriptive characteristics. Data were analysed descriptively for all the SRs, within each of the nine dental specialities, and for Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs separately. RESULTS: 1,188 oral health (126 Cochrane and 1062 non-Cochrane) SRs published from 1991 through May 2012 were identified, encompassing the nine dental specialties. Over half (n?=?676; 56.9%) of the SRs were published in specialty oral health journals, with almost all (n?=?1,178; 99.2%) of the SRs published in English and almost none of the non-Cochrane SRs (n?=?11; 0.9%) consisting of updates of previously published SRs. 75.3% of the SRs were categorized as therapeutic, with 64.5% examining non-drug interventions, while approximately half (n?=?150/294; 51%) of the non-therapeutic SRs were classified as epidemiological SRs. The SRs included a median of 15 studies, with a meta-analysis conducted in 43.6%, in which a median of 9 studies/1 randomized trial were included in the largest meta-analysis conducted. Funding was received for 25.1% of the SRs, including nearly three-quarters (n?=?96; 76.2%) of the Cochrane SRs. CONCLUSION: Epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of the 1,188 oral health SRs varied across the nine dental specialties and by SR category (Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane). There is a clear need for more updates of SRs in all the dental specialties.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare cancer-related systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, with respect to type, content, quality and citation rates.DesignMethodological SR with assessment and comparison of SRs and meta-analyses. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-based extraction form. Both authors independently screened search results, extracted content-relevant characteristics and retrieved citation numbers of the included reviews using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database.Data sourcesCancer-related SRs were retrieved from the CDSR, as well as from the 10 journals which publish oncological SRs and had the highest impact factors, using a comprehensive search in both the CDSR and MEDLINE.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included all cancer-related SRs and meta-analyses published from January 2011 to May 2016. Methodological SRs were excluded.ResultsWe included 346 applicable Cochrane reviews and 215 SRs from high-impact journals. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95%?CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95%?CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95%?CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95%?CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95%?CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95%?CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0-143); high-impact journal SRs: 74.45 (0-652)).ConclusionsWhen comparing cancer-related SRs published in the CDSR versus those published in high-impact medical journals, Cochrane reviews were consistently of higher methodological quality, but cited less frequently.

Project description:Objectives (1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered. Design Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials. Setting Journals publishing in the field of urology. Participants First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009' (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group. Intervention MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01-03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information. Outcome measures Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered. Results Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). Conclusions The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.

Project description:Objective: Systematic reviews are increasingly used as sources of evidence in clinical cardiology guidelines. In the present study, we aimed to assess the quality of published systematic reviews in high impact cardiology journals. Methods: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2019 in five general cardiology journals with the highest impact factor (according to Clarivate Analytics 2019). We extracted data on eligibility criteria, methodological characteristics, bias assessments, and sources of funding. Further, we assessed the quality of retrieved reviews using the AMSTAR tool. Results: A total of 352 systematic reviews were assessed. The AMSTAR quality score was low or critically low in 71% (95% CI: 65.7-75.4) of the assessed reviews. Sixty-four reviews (18.2%, 95% CI: 14.5-22.6) registered/published their protocol. Only 221 reviews (62.8%, 95% CI: 57.6-67.7) reported adherence to the EQUATOR checklists, 208 reviews (58.4%, 95% CI: 53.9-64.1) assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and 177 reviews (52.3%, 95% CI: 45.1-55.5) assessed the risk of publication bias in their primary outcome analysis. The primary outcome was statistically significant in 274 (79.6%, 95% CI: 75.1-83.6) and had statistical heterogeneity in 167 (48.5%, 95% CI: 43.3-53.8) reviews. The use and sources of external funding was not disclosed in 87 reviews (24.7%, 95% CI: 20.5-29.5). Data analysis showed that the existence of publication bias was significantly associated with statistical heterogeneity of the primary outcome and that complex design, larger sample size, and higher AMSTAR quality score were associated with higher citation metrics. Conclusion: Our analysis uncovered widespread gaps in conducting and reporting systematic reviews in cardiology. These findings highlight the importance of rigorous editorial and peer review policies in systematic review publishing, as well as education of the investigators and clinicians on the synthesis and interpretation of evidence.

Dataset Information

Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study.

Publications

Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets