Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

Details

Ressource 1Download: BIB_97AB8DD5D129.P001.pdf (63.67 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: Final published version
Serval ID
serval:BIB_97AB8DD5D129
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.
Journal
Plos One
Author(s)
Meerpohl Joerg J., Herrle Florian, Reinders Stefan, Antes Gerd, von Elm Erik
ISSN
1932-6203 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1932-6203
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2012
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
7
Number
5
Pages
e35732 [5 p.]
Language
english
Notes
Voir Published erratum: PMID:23094011
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
09/05/2012 11:27
Last modification date
20/08/2019 14:59
Usage data