Ratajczak Piotr, Oziewicz Katarzyna, Sommer Isolde, Kopciuch Dorota, Paczkowska Anna, Zaprutko Tomasz, Kus Krzysztof
Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Social Pharmacy, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 60-806 Poznan, Poland.
Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, 3500 Krems, Austria.
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Apr 17;13(8):927. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13080927.
The surge in scientific publications during the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the need for reliable secondary studies such as Systematic Reviews, synthesising evidence to guide clinical and public health decisions. This study aimed to analyse the current practices, preferences, and challenges faced by researchers conducting secondary studies and assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these practices. An online survey was conducted among researchers actively involved in secondary research. Email addresses were collected from PubMed for publications related to COVID-19 secondary studies between 2020 and 2022. The survey comprised 24 questions, including single- and multiple-choice formats, covering general information, Systematic Review processes, and changes during the pandemic. Statistical analysis, including Pearson's Chi test, was performed on key responses to identify significant correlations. This study highlights that only 26.9% of respondents use keyword-generation tools. However, those using PubMed were more likely to utilise MeSH ( = 0.01486, df = 1, Chi = 5.932568). Systematic Review software adoption was prevalent, particularly for Rapid Reviews, with Covidence being commonly used ( = 0.00843, df = 1, Chi = 6.938953), especially during the screening stage ( = 0.02400, df = 1, Chi = 5.094851). Despite this, many researchers still reported that they did not use any software. A total of 94.9% of respondents reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and protocol registration was strongly associated with following these guidelines ( = 0.00320, df = 2, Chi = 11.48858). Researchers using Embase were significantly more likely to incorporate RCTs ( = 0.00360, df = 1, Chi = 8.476092), while Cochrane reviewers showed a lower reliance on non-randomised trials ( = 0.02601, df = 1, Chi = 4.955580). During the COVID-19 pandemic, 64.3% of respondents observed a significant increase in secondary studies. This study highlights key trends in secondary research, emphasising adherence to established guidelines and the growing reliance on software tools. However, gaps remain in protocol registration and keyword generation practices. Addressing these gaps through targeted training may improve the quality of future secondary studies, particularly during global health crises.
在新冠疫情期间，科学出版物数量激增，这使得对诸如系统评价等可靠的二次研究的需求更为迫切，这类研究旨在综合证据以指导临床和公共卫生决策。本研究旨在分析开展二次研究的研究人员当前的做法、偏好及面临的挑战，并评估新冠疫情对这些做法的影响。我们对积极参与二次研究的研究人员进行了一项在线调查。通过在PubMed上收集了2020年至2022年期间与新冠二次研究相关的出版物的电子邮件地址。该调查包括24个问题，涵盖单项选择题和多项选择题形式，内容涉及基本信息、系统评价过程以及疫情期间的变化。我们对关键回答进行了包括Pearson卡方检验在内的统计分析，以确定显著的相关性。这项研究表明，只有26.9%的受访者使用关键词生成工具。然而，使用PubMed的受访者更有可能使用医学主题词（P = 0.01486，自由度 = 1，卡方值 = 5.932568）。系统评价软件的使用很普遍，尤其是在快速评价中，Covidence软件被广泛使用（P = 0.00843，自由度 = 1，卡方值 = 6.938953），特别是在筛选阶段（P = 0.02400，自由度 = 1，卡方值 = 5.094851）。尽管如此，许多研究人员仍表示他们没有使用任何软件。共有94.9%的受访者报告遵循PRISMA指南，并且方案注册与遵循这些指南密切相关（P = 0.00320，自由度 = 2，卡方值 = 11.48858）。使用Embase的研究人员纳入随机对照试验的可能性显著更高（P = 0.00360，自由度 = 1，卡方值 = 8.476092），而Cochrane综述员对非随机试验的依赖程度较低（P = 0.02601，自由度 = 1，卡方值 = 4.955580）。在新冠疫情期间，64.3%的受访者观察到二次研究显著增加。这项研究突出了二次研究的关键趋势，强调坚持既定指南以及对软件工具的依赖日益增加。然而，在方案注册和关键词生成做法方面仍存在差距。通过有针对性的培训来弥补这些差距，可能会提高未来二次研究的质量，尤其是在全球卫生危机期间。
