Replicability in the context of systematic reviews: a call for a framework with considerations regarding duplication, overlap and intentionality

Climate-related health impact indicators for public health surveillance in a changing climate: a systematic review and local suitability analysis

Climate change challenges public health. Effective management of climate-related health risks relies on robust public health surveillance (PHS) and population health indicators. Despite existing global and country-specific indicators, their integration into local PHS systems is limited, impacting decision-making. We conducted a systematic review examining population health indicators relevant to climate change impacts and their suitability for national PHS systems. Guided by a registered protocol, we searched multiple databases and included 41 articles. Of these, 35 reported morbidity indicators, and 39 reported mortality indicators. Using Chile as a case study, we identified three sets of indicators for the Chilean PHS. The high-priority set included vector-, food-, and water-borne diseases, as well as temperature-related health outcomes indicators due to their easy integration into existing PHS systems. This review highlights the importance of population health indicators in monitoring climate-related health impacts, emphasising the need for local contextual factors to guide indicator selection.

Funding

This research project was partly funded by ANID Chile and University College London. None of these sources had any involvement in the research conceptualisation, design, or interpretation of the results.

The 2-week systematic review (2weekSR) method was successfully blind-replicated by another team: a case study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the replicability of a 2-week systematic review (index 2weekSR) created with the assistance of automation tools using the fidelity method.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses compliant SR protocol was developed based on the published information of the index 2weekSR study. The replication team consisted of three reviewers. Two reviewers blocked off time during the replication. The total time to complete tasks and the meta-analysis results were compared with the index 2weekSR study. Review process fidelity scores (FSs) were calculated for review methods and outcomes. Barriers to completing the replication were identified.

RESULTS

The review was completed over 63 person-hours (11 workdays/15 calendar days). A FS of 0.95 was achieved for the methods, with 3 (of 8) tasks only partially replicated, and an FS of 0.63 for the outcomes, with 6 (of 7) only partially replicated and one task was not replicated. Nonreplication was mainly caused by missing information in the index 2weekSR study that was not required in standard reporting guidelines. The replication arrived at the same conclusions as the original study.

CONCLUSION

A 2weekSR study was replicated by a small team of three reviewers supported by automation tools. Including additional information when reporting SRs should improve their replicability.

Drivers of green purchasing behaviour: a systematic review and a research agenda

Background: Green purchasing is an important aspect of sustainable consumption, which decreases society's environmental effect. Although numerous research has been conducted to investigate the determinants of green buying behaviour, there has been a lack of effort in comprehensively analysing these findings. The purpose of this study is to examine the available literature on the factors that influence green purchasing behaviour. Methods: The review focused on empirical research published in peer-reviewed English-language publications between 2017 and 2021 in Web of Science and Scopus. The research took place from May to June 2021. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) is used to assess the risk of bias in systematic literature reviews. Results: 41 articles were included, with significant focus on the retailing sector. Most of these studies were centred in Asian countries, primarily China and India. The Theory of Planned Behaviour was the most prominent, appearing 15 times, followed by the Theory of Reasoned Action (seven times). Analysis identified five main themes and 15 sub-themes related to green purchase behaviour drivers. These themes were categorized by occurrence: People (34 papers), marketing (13), knowledge (12), environment (12), and influence (nine). The dominant driver was people (34 studies), encompassing sub-themes including motivation (three), perception (eight), behavioural (13), and psychographic characteristics (10). Conclusions: This study has given an overview of the present status of green purchasing behaviour, which serves as a foundation for future studies and guidance for policymakers and practitioners. However, it does not include unpublished materials and non-English papers. Secondly, it focuses on articles from two databases within the last five years which doesn't encompass all article types, prompting the need for future exploration. Thirdly, extending the review's time frame could unveil more pronounced GPB patterns. Lastly, although all eligible papers were assessed based on criteria, the chance of overlooking some papers is acknowledged.

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.

Evidence-based health policy in Germany: lack of communication and coordination between academia and health authorities?

Health-care decision making should consider the best available evidence, often in the form of systematic reviews (SRs). The number of existing SRs and their overlap make their identification and use difficult. Decision makers often rely on de novo SRs instead of using existing SRs. We describe two cases of duplicate reviews (minimum volume threshold of total knee arthroplasties and lung cancer screening) and one case of duplicate primary data analysis (transcatheter aortic valve implantation). All cases have in common that unintended duplication of research occurred between health authorities and academia, demonstrating a lack of communication and coordination between them.It is important to note that academia and health authorities have different incentives. Academics are often measured by the number of peer-reviewed publications and grants awarded. In contrast, health authorities must comply with laws and are commissioned to deliver a specific report within a defined period of time. Most replication is currently unintended. A solution may be the collaboration of stakeholders commonly referred to as integrated knowledge translation (IKT). The IKT approach means that research is conducted in collaboration with the end users of the research. It requires active collaborations between researchers and decision-makers or knowledge users (clinicians, managers, policy makers) throughout the research process. Wherever cooperation is possible in spite of requirements for independence or confidentiality, legal regulations should facilitate and support collaborative approaches between academia and health authorities.