Pauwels Nele S, Koobasi Muguet, Fry Andra, Vandendriessche Thomas, Wittevrongel Annie, Ødegaard Marte
Knowledge Centre for Health Ghent, Ghent University Ghent University Hospital Ghent Belgium.
LSE Library London School of Economics and Political Science London UK.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 Mar 31;2(4):e12050. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12050. eCollection 2024 Apr.
Systematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical decision-making, policy formulation, and evidence-based practice. However, despite the existence of well-established guidelines, inadequately executed and reported systematic reviews continue to be published. These highly cited reviews not only pose a threat to the credibility of science but also have substantial implications for medical decision-making. This study aims to evaluate and recommend improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews.
A sample of 168 journals was selected based on systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2021, taking into account their Altmetric attention score, citation impact, and mentions in Altmetric Explorer. Author instructions were downloaded, and data extraction was carried out using a standardized web form. Two reviewers independently extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics, and recommendations for editorial teams were formulated. The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf. io/bym8d).
One-third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines, protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist. Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldom acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews.
Journals that make substantial contributions to synthesizing evidence in biomedicine and health are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting of reliable systematic reviews. This not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially compromises the quality of this frequently published research type. Furthermore, there is a need for greater recognition of the added value of information specialists to the systematic review and publishing processes. This article provides recommendations drawn from the study's observations, aiming to help editorial teams enhance author instructions and, consequently, potentially assisting systematic reviewers in improving the quality of their reviews.
系统评价在为临床决策、政策制定和循证实践提供信息方面发挥着关键作用。然而，尽管存在完善的指南，但执行和报告不充分的系统评价仍在持续发表。这些被大量引用的评价不仅对科学的可信度构成威胁，而且对医疗决策有重大影响。本研究旨在评估生物医学和健康期刊关于系统评价的开展和报告的作者指南，并提出改进建议。
根据2020年至2021年发表的系统评价，选取168种期刊作为样本，同时考虑它们的Altmetric关注度得分、引文影响力以及在Altmetric Explorer中的提及情况。下载作者指南，并使用标准化网络表单进行数据提取。两名评审员独立提取数据，分歧由第三名评审员解决。研究结果采用描述性统计呈现，并为编辑团队制定建议。该方案已在开放科学框架注册中心（osf.io/bym8d）注册。
三分之一的期刊缺乏针对系统评价的定制化指南，这表现为未提及开展或报告指南、方案注册、数据共享以及信息专家的参与。一半的作者指南没有关于系统评价的专门章节，这妨碍了定制化信息的可查找性。信息专家的参与很少得到认可。最终，大多数作者指南中没有更新日期，这引发了对纳入系统评价的最新进展和工具的担忧。
在生物医学和健康领域证据综合方面做出重大贡献的期刊，错失了在作者指南中就可靠系统评价的开展和报告提供明确指导的机会。这不仅无法为未来的作者提供信息，还可能损害这种经常发表的研究类型的质量。此外，需要更多地认识到信息专家对系统评价和出版过程的附加价值。本文根据研究观察结果提出建议，旨在帮助编辑团队完善作者指南，从而有可能协助系统评价者提高其评价的质量。
