Global mapping of overviews of systematic reviews in healthcare published between 2000 and 2020: a bibliometric analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 137 ◽  
pp. 58-72
Author(s):  
Konstantinos I. Bougioukas ◽  
Elpida Vounzoulaki ◽  
Chrysanthi D. Mantsiou ◽  
Georgia D. Papanastasiou ◽  
Eliophotos D. Savvides ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Jia He Zhang ◽  
Alyssa Chen ◽  
Trish Neelakant ◽  
Gavindeep Shinger ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Multiple ‘overviews of reviews’ conducted on the same topic (“overlapping overviews”) represent a waste of research resources, and can confuse clinicians who are required to choose among competing treatments. We aimed to assess the frequency and characteristics of overlapping overviews. Methods MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane databases were searched for overviews that: synthesised reviews of health interventions and conducted systematic searches. Overlap in topic was defined as: duplication of PICO elements, not representing an update of a previous overview, and not a replication. We also categorized the overviews as broad or narrow in scope. Results Of 541 overviews identified (2000–2018), 172 (32%) overlapped across similar PICO. The overlapping overviews fell within 13 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications and 63 topics. The overviews may have overlapped partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of an overview was duplicated. 149/172 (87%) overlapping overviews were characterized as broad in scope. Most frequently, broad overviews had targeted populations for which multiple interventions were addressed (44%), or least frequently, they had a targeted intervention for multiple populations (17%). Conclusions One third of overviews overlapped in content with a majority covering broad topic areas, and fewer considering subsets of the evidence. A multiplicity of overviews on the same topic adds to the ongoing waste of research resources, time and effort across medical disciplines. This study and the database of 172 overlapping overviews can provide a guide to authors about which topics are covered, and gaps in the evidence for future analysis.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e051839
Author(s):  
Lawrence Mbuagbaw ◽  
Anel Schoonees ◽  
Joy Oliver ◽  
Dachi Arikpo ◽  
Solange Durão ◽  
...  

IntroductionCochrane Africa (https://africa.cochrane.org/) aims to increase Cochrane reviews addressing high priority questions in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Researchers residing in SSA, despite often drawing on Cochrane methods, training or resources, conduct and publish systematic reviews outside of Cochrane. Our objective was to investigate the extent to which Cochrane authors from SSA publish Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.MethodsWe conducted a bibliometric study of systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews from SSA, first by identifying SSA Cochrane authors, then retrieving their first and last author systematic reviews and overviews from PubMed (2008 to April 2019) and using descriptive analyses to investigate the country of origin, types of reviews and trends in publishing Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews over time. To be eligible, a review had to have predetermined objectives, eligibility criteria, at least two databases searched, data extraction, quality assessment and a first or last author with a SSA affiliation.ResultsWe identified 657 Cochrane authors and 757 eligible systematic reviews. Most authors were from South Africa (n=332; 51%), followed by Nigeria (n=126; 19%). Three-quarters of the reviews (71%) were systematic reviews of interventions. The intervention reviews were more likely to be Cochrane reviews (60.3% vs 39.7%). Conversely, the overviews (23.8% vs 76.2%), qualitative reviews (14.8% vs 85.2%), diagnostic test accuracy reviews (16.1% vs 83.9%) and the ‘other’ reviews (11.1% vs 88.9%) were more likely to be non-Cochrane reviews. During the study period, the number of non-Cochrane reviews increased more than the number of Cochrane reviews. About a quarter of the reviews covered infectious disease topics.ConclusionCochrane authors from SSA are increasingly publishing a diverse variety of systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews, often opting for non-Cochrane journals.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alaa Abd-Alrazaq ◽  
Jens Schneider ◽  
Borbala Mifsud ◽  
Tanvir Alam ◽  
Mowafa Househ ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Shortly after the emergence of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), researchers rapidly mobilized to study numerous aspects of the disease such as its evolution, clinical manifestations, effects, treatments, and vaccination. This led to a rapid increase in the number of COVID-19-related publications. Identifying trends and areas of interest using traditional review methods (e.g., scoping review and systematic reviews) for such a large domain area is challenging. OBJECTIVE We aimed to conduct an extensive bibliometric analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the COVID-19 literature. METHODS We used the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) that consists of large number of articles related to all coronaviruses. We used machine learning method to analyze most relevant COVID-19 related articles and extracted most prominent topics. Specifically, we used clustering algorithm to group articles based on similarity of their abstracts to identify the research hotspots and current research directions. We have made our software accessible to the community via GitHub. RESULTS Of the 196,630 publications retrieved from the database, we included 28,904 in the analysis. The mean number of weekly publications was 990 (SD=789.3). The country that published the highest number of articles was China (n=2,950). The largest number of documents was published in BioRxiv. Lei Liu affiliated in the Southern University of Science and Technology in China published the highest number of documents (n=46). Based on titles and abstracts alone, we were able to identify 1,515 surveys, 733 systematic reviews, 512 cohort studies, 480 meta-analyses, 362 randomized control trials. We identified 19 different topics addressed by the included studies. The most dominant topic was public health response followed by clinical care practices during COVID-19, its clinical characteristics and risk factors, and epidemic models for its spread. CONCLUSIONS We provided an overview of the COVID-19 literature and identified current hotspots and research directions. Our findings can be useful for the research community to help prioritize research needs, and recognize leading COVID-19 researchers, institutes, countries, and publishers. This study showed that an AI-based bibliometric analysis has the potential to rapidly explore large corpora of academic publications during a public health crisis. We believe that this work can be used to analyze other eHealth related literature to help clinicians, administrators and policy makers to have a holistic view of the literature and be able to categorize the different topics of existing research for further analysis. It can be further scaled, for instance in time, to clinical summary documentation. Publishers should avoid noise in the data by developing a way to trace the evolution of individual publications and unique authors.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Κωνσταντίνος Μπουγιούκας

Στη βιοϊατρική βιβλιογραφία, οι ανασκοπήσεις συστηματικών ανασκοπήσεων (ΑΣΑ) έχουν γίνει πρόσφατα μια δημοφιλής προσέγγιση της τεκμηριωμένης σύνθεσης, όπου η μονάδα σύνθεσης είναι η συστηματική ανασκόπηση (ΣΑ). Τα αποτελέσματα από τις ΣΑ που περιλαμβάνονται σε μια ΑΣΑ μπορούν να παρουσιαστούν ακριβώς όπως αναφέρονται στις ΣΑ (ποιοτική σύνθεση) ή μπορούν να αναλυθούν εκ νέου χρησιμοποιώντας μετα-ανάλυση (ποσοτική σύνθεση). Οι ΑΣΑ μπορούν να παρέχουν πολύτιμη πληροφορία για να υποστηρίξουν τη λήψη αποφάσεων από τους επαγγελματίες υγείας και να οδηγήσουν στην ενσωμάτωση των ερευνητικών αποτελεσμάτων στην πολιτική σχεδίασης σε σύντομο χρονικό διάστημα. Χρησιμοποιώντας ένα δείγμα 1558 ΑΣΑ που δημοσιεύθηκαν μεταξύ 2000 και 2020, η βιβλιομετρική ανάλυση αποκάλυψε ερευνητικές τάσεις και τομείς ενδιαφέροντος αυτών των μελετών. Συγκεκριμένα, διαπιστώσαμε ότι οι δημοσιεύσεις αυξάνονταν ετησίως και η ονοματολογία τους δεν ήταν ενιαία (η πιο συχνή ορολογία στον τίτλο ήταν «ανασκόπηση συστηματικών ανασκοπήσεων»). Ο μεγαλύτερος αριθμός άρθρων και αυτά με τις περισσότερες αναφορές δημοσιεύτηκαν από υπεύθυνους συγγραφείς που προέρχονται από το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο. Τα άρθρα διανεμήθηκαν σε 737 επιστημονικά περιοδικά και πολλά από αυτά δημοσιεύθηκαν στον τομέα της συμπληρωματικής/εναλλακτικής ιατρικής, της ψυχιατρικής/ψυχολογίας, της διατροφής/διαιτητικής και της παιδιατρικής. Η ανάλυση της συν-συγγραφής αποκάλυψε συνεργασίες μεταξύ συγγραφέων διαφορετικών χωρών. Οι πιο συνηθισμένες κλινικές καταστάσεις ήταν η κατάθλιψη, ο διαβήτης, ο καρκίνος, η άνοια, ο πόνος, οι καρδιαγγειακές παθήσεις, το εγκεφαλικό επεισόδιο, η παχυσαρκία και η σχιζοφρένεια. Επιπλέον, αυτή η διατριβή παρουσιάζει εργαλεία που αξιολογούν την πληρότητα καταγραφής της αποτελεσματικότητας και της ασφάλειας των ιατρικών παρεμβάσεων στις ΑΣΑ. Αναπτύξαμε το εργαλείο PRIO-harms (56 υπο-στοιχεία) για να προωθήσουμε μια πιο διαφανή και ισορροπημένη αναφορά των ωφελειών και κινδύνων των ιατρικών παρεμβάσεων που διερευνώνται στις ΑΣΑ και το εργαλείο PRIO για περιλήψεις (20 υπο-στοιχεία) για να βοηθήσουμε τους συγγραφείς να συντάξουν ολοκληρωμένες, διαφανείς και κατατοπιστικές περιλήψεις για τις ΑΣΑ. Επίσης αυτά τα εργαλεία μπορούν να υιοθετηθούν από συντάκτες και εκδότες περιοδικών που δημοσιεύουν ΑΣΑ. Επιπροσθέτως, σε αυτήν τη διδακτορική διατριβή εισηγάγαμε νέες στατικές τεχνικές μέσω πινάκων και γραφημάτων για την οπτική παρουσίαση των αλληλεπικαλυπτόμενων ΣΑ που περιλαμβάνονται στις ΑΣΑ. Οι προτεινόμενες εκλεπτυσμένες γραφικές μέθοδοι (π.χ. “upset plots”, “heatmaps”, “node-link graphs”) ενδέχεται να βοηθήσουν τους μεθοδολόγους και συγγραφείς στην εξερεύνηση και απεικόνιση του βαθμού επικάλυψης των πρωτογενών μελετών των ΣΑ, γεγονός που με τη σειρά του μπορεί να βελτιώσει την εγκυρότητα και τη διαφάνεια στις ΑΣΑ. Ωστόσο, απαιτείται περισσότερη έρευνα για να κατανοηθεί ποιες γραφικές τεχνικές θα ήταν πιο χρήσιμες και ευκολότερες στην κατανόηση. Αυτά τα νέα εργαλεία και γραφικές τεχνικές θα μπορούσαν να βελτιωθούν από την κριτική αξιολόγηση και περαιτέρω επικύρωση από ειδικούς και ερευνητικές ομάδες που παράγουν κατευθυντήριες οδηγίες για τις ΑΣΑ.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Essam Al-Moraissi ◽  
Endi Lanza Galvão ◽  
Nikolaos Christidis ◽  
Saulo Gabriel Falci

Abstract Background : The aim of this bibliometric research was to identify and analyze the top 100 cited systematic reviews in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Methods : Using the Web of Science-database without restrictions on publication year or language, a bibliometric analysis was performed for the five major journals of oral and maxillofacial surgery: International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Cranio-maxillofacial Surgery, British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Surgery Oral medicine Oral pathology Oral radiology. Discussion : The most top-cited systematic review was published in 2015 with a total of 200 citations on survival and success rates of dental implants, consistent with the finding that “pre- and peri-implant surgery and dental implantology”, and “craniomaxillofacial deformities and cosmetic surgery” were the most frequently-cited topics (22% each). The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery displayed both most citations in total and in average per publication. The outcome of this article can be used as a source of information not just for researchers but also for clinicians and students, and of which areas have a large impact on the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery but cannot reflect the quality of the included systematic reviews.Systematic review registration: not applicable


Medwave ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (03) ◽  
pp. e7867-e7867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Rada ◽  
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
Camila Ávila ◽  
Macarena Morel-Marambio ◽  
Rocío Bravo-Jeria ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Ahmed Saleh Alkhutari ◽  
Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi ◽  
Endi Lanza Galvão ◽  
Nikolaos Christidis ◽  
Saulo Gabriel Moreira Falci

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document