Systematic reviews of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 continue to be poorly conducted and reported: a systematic review

Yet another problem with systematic reviews: a living review update

BACKGROUND

In February 2023, the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology published 'The Problems with Systematic Reviews: A Living Systematic Review.' In updating this living review for the first time a new problem and several themes relating to research culture have emerged.

METHODS

Literature searches were rerun to identify articles published or indexed between May 2022 and May 2023. Thematic analysis coded articles and problems across four domains of systematic review conduct (1. comprehensive, 2. rigour, 3. transparent, 4. objective).

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-two newly included articles bring the total number of relevant articles to 637. A new problem (the lack of gender diversity of systematic review author teams) brings the total number of problems with systematic reviews up to 68. This update also reveals emerging themes such as: fast science from systematic reviews on COVID-19; the failure of citation of methodological or reporting guidelines to predict high-quality methodological or reporting quality; and the influence of vested interests on systematic review conclusions. These findings coupled with a proliferation of research waste from "me-too" meta-research articles highlighting well-established problems in systematic reviews underscores the need for reforms in research culture to address the incentives for producing and publishing research papers. This update also reports where the identified flaws in systematic reviews affect their conclusions drawing on 77 meta-epidemiological studies from the total 637 included articles. These meta-meta-analytic studies begin the important work of examining which problems threaten the reliability and validity of treatment effects or conclusions derived from systematic reviews.

CONCLUSION

This living review has captured an emerging theme in the published literature relating to the composition of the review author team and highlights a potential effect on the equity reporting of the systematic reviews. We recommend that meta-research endeavors evolve from merely documenting well-established issues to understanding lesser-known problems or consequences to systematic reviews.

Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review

Background

Research waste is present in all study designs and can have significant consequences for science, including reducing the reliability of research findings and contributing to the inefficient use of resources. Estimates suggest that as much as 85% of all biomedical research is wasted. However, it is uncertain how avoidable research waste is assessed in specific types of study designs and what methods could be used to examine different aspects of research waste. We aimed to investigate which methods, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of reviews discussing research waste, have used to assess avoidable research waste.

Materials and Methods

We published a protocol in the Open Science Framework prospectively (https://osf.io/2fbp4). We searched PubMed and Embase with a 30-year limit (January 1993-August 2023). The concept examined was how research waste and related synonyms (e.g., unnecessary, redundant, duplicate, etc.) were assessed in reviews with a systematic search: systematic, scoping, or overviews of reviews. We extracted data on the method used in the review to examine for research waste and for which study design this method was applied.

Results

The search identified 4,285 records of which 93 reviews with systematic searches were included. The reviews examined a median of 90 (range 10-6,781) studies, where the study designs most commonly included were randomized controlled trials (48%) and systematic reviews (33%). In the last ten years, the number of reports assessing research waste has increased. More than 50% of examined reviews reported evaluating methodological research waste among included studies, typically using tools such as one of Cochrane Risk of Bias tools (n = 8) for randomized controlled trials or AMSTAR 1 or 2 (n = 12) for systematic reviews. One fourth of reviews assessed reporting guideline adherence to e.g., CONSORT (n = 4) for randomized controlled trials or PRISMA (n = 6) for systematic reviews.

Conclusion

Reviews with systematic searches focus on methodological quality and reporting guideline adherence when examining research waste. However, this scoping review revealed that a wide range of tools are used, which may pose difficulties in comparing examinations and performing meta-research. This review aids researchers in selecting methodologies and contributes to the ongoing discourse on optimizing research efficiency.

Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance

BACKGROUND

Objectives of this study were to analyze the impact of including librarians and information specialist as methodological peer-reviewers. We sought to determine if and how librarians' comments differed from subject peer-reviewers'; whether there were differences in the implementation of their recommendations; how this impacted editorial decision-making; and the perceived utility of librarian peer-review by librarians and authors.

METHODS

We used a mixed method approach, conducting a qualitative analysis of reviewer reports, author replies and editors' decisions of submissions to the International Journal of Health Governance. Our content analysis categorized 16 thematic areas, so that methodological and subject peer-reviewers' comments, decisions and rejection rates could be compared. Categories were based on the standard areas covered in peer-review (e.g., title, originality, etc.) as well as additional in-depth categories relating to the methodology (e.g., search strategy, reporting guidelines, etc.). We developed and used criteria to judge reviewers' perspectives and code their comments. We conducted two online multiple-choice surveys which were qualitatively analyzed: one of methodological peer-reviewers' perceptions of peer-reviewing, the other of published authors' views on the suggested revisions.

RESULTS

Methodological peer-reviewers assessed 13 literature reviews submitted between September 2020 and March 2023. 55 reviewer reports were collected: 25 from methodological peer-reviewers, 30 from subject peer-reviewers (mean: 4.2 reviews per manuscript). Methodological peer-reviewers made more comments on methodologies, with authors more likely to implement their changes (52 of 65 changes, vs. 51 of 82 by subject peer-reviewers); they were also more likely to reject submissions (seven vs. four times, respectively). Where there were differences in recommendations to editors, journal editors were more likely to follow methodological peer-reviewers (nine vs. three times, respectively). The survey of published authors (87.5% response rate) revealed four of seven found comments on methodologies helpful. Librarians' survey responses (66.5% response rate) revealed those who conducted peer-reviews felt they improved quality of publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Librarians can enhance evidence synthesis publications by ensuring methodologies have been conducted and reported appropriately. Their recommendations helped authors revise submissions and facilitated editorial decision-making. Further research could determine if sharing reviews with subject peer-reviewers and journal editors could benefit them in better understanding of evidence synthesis methodologies.