Inconsistent views among systematic review authors toward publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles: an international survey

Designing of a new transdermal antibiotic delivery polymeric membrane modified by functionalized SBA-15 mesoporous filler

A new drug delivery system using an asymmetric polyethersulfone (PES) membrane modified by SBA-15 and glutamine-modified SBA-15 (SBA-Q) was prepared in this study by the aim of azithromycin delivery enhancement in both in vitro and ex vivo experiments. The research focused on optimizing membrane performance by adjusting critical parameters including drug concentration, membrane thickness, modifier percentage, polymer percentage, and pore maker percentage. To characterize the fabricated membranes, various techniques were employed, including scanning electron microscopy, water contact angle, and tensile strength assessments. Following optimization, membrane composition of 17% PES, 2% polyvinylpyrrolidone, 1% SBA-15, and 0.5% SBA-Q emerged as the most effective. The optimized membranes demonstrated a substantial increase in drug release (906 mg/L) compared to the unmodified membrane (440 mg/L). The unique membrane structure, with a dense top layer facilitating sustained drug release and a porous sub-layer acting as a drug reservoir, contributed to this improvement. Biocompatibility assessments, antibacterial activity analysis, blood compatibility tests, and post-diffusion tissue integrity evaluations confirmed the promising biocompatibility of the optimized membranes. Moreover, long-term performance evaluations involving ten repeated usages underscored the reusability of the optimized membrane, highlighting its potential for sustained and reliable drug delivery applications.

Perspectives on systematic review protocol registration: a survey amongst stakeholders in the clinical research publication process

BACKGROUND

As systematic reviews (SRs) inform healthcare decisions, it is key that they address relevant questions and use rigorous methodology. Registration of SR protocols helps researchers identify relevant topics for future reviews and aims to prevent bias and duplication of effort. However, most SRs protocols are currently not registered, despite its significance. To guide future recommendations to enhance preregistration of SRs, it is important to gain a comprehensive understanding of the perspectives within the research community. Therefore, this study aims to examine the experiences with and factors of influence (barriers and facilitators) on prospective SR registration amongst researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors.

METHODS

Two different surveys were distributed to two groups: researchers and journal editors both identified from an existing sample of SRs. Researchers who indicated to have peer reviewed a SR were surveyed on their perspectives as peer reviewers as well. Survey design and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Shared and unique subthemes from the perspectives of researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors were identified and linked to the SR registration process (Innovation), to team, organisation (Inner setting) and (inter)national research community (Outer setting), and to characteristics of researchers, peer reviewers or journal editors (Individuals).

RESULTS

The survey's response rates were 65/727 (9%) for researchers, of which 37 were peer reviewers, and 22/308 (7%) for journal editors. Most respondents (n = 76, 94%) were familiar with SR protocol registration and 81% of researchers had registered minimally one SR protocol. Shared SR registration process subthemes were the importance and advantages of SR protocol registration, as well as barriers such as a high administrative burden. Shared subthemes regarding the inner and outer setting centred on journal processes, external standards and time. Shared individual factors were knowledge, skills and awareness.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the respondents were familiar with SR protocol registration and had a positive attitude towards it. This study identified suboptimal registration process, administrative burden and lack of mandatory SR protocol registration as barriers. By overcoming these barriers, SR protocol registration could contribute more effectively to the goals of open science.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

osf.io/gmv6z.

Ginseng and health outcomes: an umbrella review

Background: Ginseng consumption has been associated with various health outcomes. However, there are no review articles summarizing these reports. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, CNKI and Wanfang databases were searched from inception to 31 July 2022. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) systems were used to assess the methodological quality and quality of evidence in each meta-analysis, and the results were summarized in a narrative form. Results: Nineteen meta-analyses that met the eligibility criteria were identified from among 1,233 papers. The overall methodological quality was relatively poor, with only five studies being low-quality, and 14 critically low-quality. When compared with control treatments (mainly placebo), ginseng was beneficial for improving fatigue and physical function, sexual function, menopausal symptoms, metabolic indicators, inflammatory markers, unstable angina and respiratory diseases. Adverse events included gastrointestinal symptoms and potential bleeding; however, no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: This umbrella review suggests that ginseng intake has beneficial therapeutic effects for diverse diseases. However, the methodological quality of studies needs to be improved considerably. In addition, it is imperative to establish the clinical efficacy of ginseng through high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Along with other types of research, it has been stated that the extent of redundancy in systematic reviews has reached epidemic proportions. However, it was also emphasized that not all duplication is bad, that replication in research is essential, and that it can help discover unfortunate behaviors of scientists. Thus, the question is how to define a redundant systematic review, the harmful consequences of such reviews, and what we could do to prevent the unnecessary amount of this redundancy.

MAIN BODY

There is no consensus definition of a redundant systematic review. Also, it needs to be defined what amount of overlap between systematic reviews is acceptable and not considered a redundancy. One needs to be aware that it is possible that the authors did not intend to create a redundant systematic review. A new review on an existing topic, which is not an update, is likely justified only when it can be shown that the previous review was inadequate, for example, due to suboptimal methodology. Redundant meta-analyses could have scientific, ethical, and economic questions for researchers and publishers, and thus, they should be avoided, if possible. Potential solutions for preventing redundant reviews include the following: (1) mandatory prospective registration of systematic reviews; (2) editors and peer reviewers rejecting duplicate/redundant and inadequate reviews; (3) modifying the reporting checklists for systematic reviews; (4) developing methods for evidence-based research (EBR) monitoring; (5) defining systematic reviews; (6) defining the conclusiveness of systematic reviews; (7) exploring interventions for the adoption of methodological advances; (8) killing off zombie reviews (i.e., abandoned registered reviews); (9) better prevention of duplicate reviews at the point of registration; (10) developing living systematic reviews; and (11) education of researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Disproportionate redundancy of the same or very similar systematic reviews can lead to scientific, ethical, economic, and societal harms. While it is not realistic to expect that the creation of redundant systematic reviews can be completely prevented, some preventive measures could be tested and implemented to try to reduce the problem. Further methodological research and development in this field will be welcome.

Where to prospectively register a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prospective registration aims to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of research and to increase transparency. In addition, prospective registration of systematic reviews is argued to help preventing unintended duplication, thereby reducing research waste. PROSPERO was launched in 2011 as the first prospective register for systematic reviews. While it has long been the only option to prospectively register systematic reviews, recently there have been new developments. Our aim was to identify and characterize current options to prospectively register a systematic review to assist review authors in choosing a suitable register.

METHODS

To identify systematic review registers, we independently performed internet searches in January 2021 using keywords related to systematic reviews and prospective registration. "Registration" was defined as the process of entering information about a planned systematic review into a database before starting the systematic review process. We collected data on the characteristics of the identified registries and contacted the responsible party of each register for verification of the data related to their registry.

RESULTS

Overall, we identified five options to prospectively register a systematic review: PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry, and INPLASY, which are specific to systematic reviews, and the Open Science Framework Registries and protocols.io, which represent generic registers open to any study type. Detailed information on each register is presented in tables in the main text. Regarding the systematic-review-specific registries, authors have to trade-off between the costs of registration and the processing time of their registration record. All registers provide an option to search for systematic reviews already registered in the register. However, it is unclear how useful these search functions are.

CONCLUSION

Authors can prospectively register their systematic review in five registries, which come with different characteristics and features. The research community should discuss fair and sustainable financing models for registers that are not operated by for-profit organizations.