J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Jan 1;110(1):63-71. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1273.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) are designed to be rigorous research methodologies that synthesize information and inform practice. An increase in their publication runs parallel to quality concerns and a movement toward standards to improve reporting and methodology. With the goal of informing the guidance librarians provide to SR/MA teams, this study assesses online journal author guidelines from an institutional sample to determine whether these author guidelines address SR/MA methodological quality.
A Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) search identified SRs/MAs published in 2014-2019 by authors affiliated with a single institution. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to develop an assessment tool of closed questions specific to measures for SR/MA methodological quality in author guidelines, with questions added about author guidelines in general. Multiple reviewers completed the assessment.
The author guidelines of 141 journals were evaluated. Less than 20% addressed at least one of the assessed measures specific to SR/MA methodological quality. There was wide variation in author guidelines between journals from the same publisher apart from the American Medical Association, which consistently offered in-depth author guidelines. Normalized Eigenfactor and Article Influence Scores did not indicate author guideline breadth.
Most author guidelines in the institutional sample did not address SR/MA methodological quality. When consulting with teams embarking on SRs/MAs, librarians should not expect author guidelines to provide details about the requirements of the target journals. Librarians should advise teams to follow established SR/MA standards, contact journal staff, and review SRs/MAs previously published in the journal.
系统评价和荟萃分析（SRs/MAs）旨在成为严谨的研究方法，综合信息并为实践提供信息。随着其出版物的增加，人们对质量的担忧也越来越多，并且朝着提高报告和方法的标准方向发展。本研究旨在为指导图书馆员为 SR/MA 团队提供信息，评估机构样本中的在线期刊作者指南，以确定这些作者指南是否涉及 SR/MA 方法学质量。
通过 Web of Science Core Collection（Clarivate）搜索，确定了 2014-2019 年由单一机构附属作者发表的 SRs/MAs。使用 AMSTAR 2 清单制定了一个评估工具，用于评估作者指南中针对 SR/MA 方法学质量的封闭问题，其中还添加了有关作者指南的一般问题。多名评审员完成了评估。
评估了 141 种期刊的作者指南。不到 20%的期刊至少涉及评估的一项针对 SR/MA 方法学质量的特定措施。除了美国医学协会（AMA）之外，来自同一出版商的期刊之间的作者指南差异很大，而 AMA 则始终提供深入的作者指南。归一化特征向量和文章影响力得分并未表明作者指南的广度。
机构样本中的大多数作者指南并未涉及 SR/MA 方法学质量。在与开始进行 SRs/MAs 的团队协商时，图书馆员不应期望作者指南提供有关目标期刊要求的详细信息。图书馆员应建议团队遵循既定的 SR/MA 标准，与期刊工作人员联系，并审查该期刊之前发表的 SRs/MAs。
