scholarly journals Publication practices of sub-Saharan African Cochrane authors: a bibliometric study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e051839
Author(s):  
Lawrence Mbuagbaw ◽  
Anel Schoonees ◽  
Joy Oliver ◽  
Dachi Arikpo ◽  
Solange Durão ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Bibliometric Study ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Publication Practices ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Overviews Of Systematic Reviews

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.

scholarly journals Reporting of the Role of the Expert Searcher in Cochrane Reviews

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Zhang ◽  
Margaret Sampson ◽  
Jessie McGowan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Statistical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Statistical Decisions ◽  
Search Quality

Introduction - This study applied the principles of evidence based information practice to clarify the role of information specialists and librarians in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews and to determine whether information specialists impact the quality of searching in Cochrane systematic reviews. Objectives - This research project sought to determine how the contribution of the person responsible for searching in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews was reported; whether the contribution was recognized through authorship or acknowledgement; the qualifications of the searcher; and the association between the type of contributorship and characteristics of the search strategy, assessability, and the presence of certain types of errors. Methods - Data sources: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Library 3 (2002). Inclusion criteria: The study included systematic reviews that met the following criteria: one or more sections of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy were utilised, primary studies were either randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, and included and excluded studies were clearly identified. Data extraction: Two librarians assessed the searches for errors, establishing consensus on discordant ratings. Results - Of the 169 reviews screened for this project, 105 met all eligibility criteria. Authors fulfilled the searching role in 41.9% of reviews studied, acknowledged persons or groups in 13.3%, a combination in 9.5%, and the role was not reported in 35.2% of reviews. For the 78 reviews in which meta-analyses were performed, the positions of those responsible for statistical decisions were examined for comparative purposes. The statistical role was performed by an author in 47.4% of cases and unreported in the same number of cases. Insufficient analyzable data was obtained regarding professional qualifications (3/105 for searching, 2/78 for statistical decisions). Search quality was assessed for 66 searches across 74 reviews. In general, it was more possible to assess the search quality when the searcher role was reported. An association was found between the reporting of searcher role and the presence of a consequential error. There was no association between the number of consequential errors and how the contribution of the searcher was reported. Conclusions - Qualifications of the persons responsible for searching and statistical decision-making were poorly reported in Cochrane reviews, but more complete role reporting is associated with greater assessability of searches and fewer substantive errors in search strategies.

scholarly journals Search for unpublished data by systematic reviewers: an audit

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017737 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedyeh Ziai ◽  
Rujun Zhang ◽  
An-Wen Chan ◽  
Nav Persaud
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Cochrane Database

ObjectivesWe audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.DesignAudit of systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals:Journal of the American Medical Association,The British Medical Journal,Lancet,Annals of Internal Medicineand theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched the Cochrane Library and included 100 randomly selected Cochrane reviews.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias.Main findings203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.ConclusionA significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Clinical utility of peptide microarrays in the serodiagnosis of neglected tropical diseases in sub-Saharan Africa: protocol for a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e042279
Author(s):  
Arthur Vengesai ◽  
Thajasvarie Naicker ◽  
Maritha Kasambala ◽  
Herald Midzi ◽  
Tariro Mduluza-Jokonya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Neglected Tropical Diseases ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Tropical Diseases ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Peptide Microarrays ◽  
Sub Saharan

IntroductionNeglected tropical diseases tend to cluster in the same poor populations and, to make progress with their control, they will have to be dealt with in an integrated manner. Peptide microarrays may be a solution to these problems, where diagnosis for co-infection can be detected simultaneously using the one tool. A meta-analysis using hierarchical models will be performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of peptide microarrays for detecting schistosomiasis (Schistosoma mansoni and S. haematobium), soil-transmitted helminths (Trichuris trichiura, Ascaris lumbricoides and Necator americanus), trachoma (Chlamydia trachomatis), lymphatic filariasis (Wuchereria bancrofti) and onchocerciasis (Onchocerca volvulus) in people residing in sub-Saharan Africa.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search of the following databases will be performed: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register, PubMed, EMBASE and The Web of Science. Studies comparing peptide microarrays with a reference standard from a random or consecutive series of patients will be included in the study. Two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts for relevance, assess full-text articles for inclusion and carry out data extraction using a tailored data extraction form. The quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool will be used to assess the quality of the selected studies. The bivariate model and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve model will be performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the peptide microarrays. Meta-regression analyses will be performed to investigate heterogeneity across studies.Ethics and disseminationThere is no requirement for ethical approval because the work will be carried out using previously published data, without human beings involvement. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and in conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020175145.

scholarly journals Adolescents and age of consent to HIV testing: an updated review of national policies in sub-Saharan Africa

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e049673
Author(s):  
Magdalena Barr-DiChiara ◽  
Mandikudza Tembo ◽  
Lisa Harrison ◽  
Caitlin Quinn ◽  
Wole Ameyan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hiv Testing ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Central Africa ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Parental Consent ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Age Of Consent ◽  
Key Population ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Eastern And Southern Africa

ObjectivesIn sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where HIV burden is highest, access to testing, a key entry point for prevention and treatment, remains low for adolescents (aged 10–19). Access may be hampered by policies requiring parental consent for adolescents to receive HIV testing services (HTS). In 2013, the WHO recommended countries to review HTS age of consent policies. Here, we investigate country progress and policies on age of consent for HIV testing.DesignComprehensive policy review.Data sourcesPolicies addressing HTS were obtained through searching WHO repositories and governmental and non-governmental websites and consulting country and regional experts.Eligibility criteriaHTS policies published by SSA governments before 2019 that included age of consent.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted on HTS age of consent including exceptions based on risk and maturity. Descriptive analyses of included policies were disaggregated by Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) and Western and Central Africa (WCA) subregions.ResultsThirty-nine policies were reviewed, 38 were eligible; 19/38 (50%) permitted HTS for adolescents ≤16 years old without parental consent. Of these, six allowed HTS at ≥12 years old, two at ≥13, two at ≥14, five at ≥15 and four at ≥16. In ESA, 71% (n=15/21) allowed those of ≤16 years old to access HTS, while only 24% (n=6/25) of WCA countries allowed the same. Maturity exceptions including marriage, sexual activity, pregnancy or key population were identified in 18 policies. In 2019, 63% (n=19/30) of policies with clear age-based criteria allowed adolescents of 12–16 years old to access HIV testing without parental consent, an increase from 37% (n=14/38) in 2013.ConclusionsWhile many countries in SSA have revised their HTS policies, many do not specify age of consent. Revision of SSA consent to HTS policies, particularly in WCA, remains a priority to achieve the 2025 goal of 95% of people with HIV knowing their status.

scholarly journals Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline A. J. Steegmans ◽  
Nicola Di Girolamo ◽  
Reint A. Meursinge Reynders
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Study Results

Abstract Background Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called “spin”. In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic interventions were reported or considered in the abstracts of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews and whether spin was identified and what type of spin. Methods Eligibility criteria were defined for the type of study designs, participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings. We will include systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database. Empty reviews will be excluded. We will manually search eligible reviews published between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2019. Data collection forms were developed a priori. All study selection and data extraction procedures will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Our main outcomes will be the prevalence of reported or considered adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract of systematic reviews and the prevalence of “spin” related to these adverse effects. We will also record the prevalence of three subtypes of spin, i.e., misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and misleading extrapolation-related spin. All statistics will be calculated for the following groups: (1) all journals individually, (2) all journals together, and (3) the five leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately. Generalized linear models will be developed to compare the various groups. Discussion We expect that our results will raise the awareness of the importance of reporting and considering of adverse effects and the presence of the phenomenon of spin related to these effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This is important, because an incomplete and inadequate reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of findings on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews can mislead readers and could lead to inadequate clinical practice. Our findings could result in policy implications for making judgments about the acceptance for publication of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.

scholarly journals Factors underpinning discrepant findings from reviews on the same topic: A systematic analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Hacke ◽  
David Nunan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
List Type ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractObjectiveTo explore factors underpinning discrepancies in reported pooled effect estimates from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews answering the same question.Study Design and SettingWe observed discrepant pooled effects in 23 out of 24 pairs of meta-analyses from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews answering the same question. Here we present the results of a systematic assessment of methodological quality and factors that explain the observed quantitative discrepancies. Methodological quality of each review was assessed using AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Matched pairs were contrasted at the macro- (review methodology), meso- (application of methodology) and micro- (data extraction) level and reasons for differences were derived.ResultsAll Cochrane reviews had high methodological quality (AMSTAR 8-11), whereas the majority (87.5%) of non-Cochrane reviews were classified as moderate (AMSTAR 4-7). Only one pair included exactly the same studies for their respective meta-analyses but there was still a discrepancy in the pooled estimate due to differences in data extraction. One pair did not include any study of its match and for one pair the same effect estimates were reported despite inclusion of different studies. The remaining pairs included at least one study in their match. Due to insufficient reporting (predominantly affecting non-Cochrane reviews) we were only able to completely ascertain the reasons for discrepancies in all included studies for 9/24 (37.5%) pairs. Across all pairs, differences in pre-defined methods (macro-level) including search strategy, eligibility criteria and performance of dual screening could possibly explain mismatches in included studies. Study selection procedures (meso-level) including disagreements in the interpretation of pre-defined eligibility criteria (14 matches) were identified as reasons underpinning discrepant review findings. Comparison of data extraction from primary studies (micro-level) was not possible in 13/24 pairs as a result of the non-Cochrane review providing insufficient details of the studies included in their meta-analyses. Two out of 24 pairs completely agreed on the numerical data presented for the same studies in their respective meta-analysis. Both review types provided sufficient information to check the accuracy of data extraction for 8 pairs (45 studies) where there were discrepancies. An assessment of 50% (22 studies) of these showed that reasons for differences in extracted data could be identified in 15 studies. We found examples for both types of review where data presented were discrepant from that given in the source study without a plausible explanation.ConclusionMethodological and author judgements and performance are key aspects underpinning poor overlap of included studies and discrepancies in reported pooled effect estimates between topic-matched reviews. Though caution must be taken when extrapolating, our findings raise the question as to what extent the entire meta-analysis evidence-base accurately reflects the available primary research both in terms of volume and data. Reinforcing awareness of the application of guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses may help mitigate some of the key issues identified in our analysis.What is new?Key findings Non-Cochrane reviews were of a lower overall methodological quality compared with Cochrane reviews. Discrepant results of meta-analyses on the same topic can be attributed to differences in included studies based on review author decision, judgements and performance at different stages of the review process.What this adds to what was known?This study provides the most robust analysis to date of the potential methodological factors underpinning discrepant review findings between matched meta-analyses answering the same question. Assessing differences between reviews at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels is a useful method to identify reasons for discrepant meta-analyses at key stages of the review process.What is the implication and what should change now?There is a need for a standardised approach to performing matched-pair analysis of meta-analyses and systematic reviews answering the same question. Our paper provides a base for this that can be refined by replication and expert consensus.

scholarly journals Intersectional stigma and its impact on HIV prevention and care among MSM and WSW in sub-Saharan African countries: a protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e047280
Author(s):  
Gamji M’Rabiu Abubakari ◽  
Debbie Dada ◽  
Jemal Nur ◽  
DeAnne Turner ◽  
Amma Otchere ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hiv Prevention ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionResearch has established that various forms of stigma (HIV stigma, gender non-conforming stigma and same-gender sex stigma) exist across Sub-Saharan Africa and have consequences for the utilisation of HIV prevention and care services. Stigmas are typically investigated in HIV literature individually or through investigating individual populations and the various stigmas they may face. The concept of intersectionality highlights the interconnected nature of social categorisations and their ability to create interdependent systems of discrimination based on gender, race, sexuality and so on. Drawing from perspectives on intersectionality, intersectional stigma denotes the convergence of multiple marginalised identities within an individual or a group, the experiences of stigma associated with these identities as well as the synergistic impact of these experiences on health and well-being. With respect to HIV, public health scholars can examine the impacts of intersectional stigmas on HIV prevention and care utilisation.Methods and analysisReviewers will search systematically through MEDLINE, Global Health, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and Africa Index Medicus and citations for quantitative studies, qualitative studies and grey literature that include data on stigma and HIV among men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women in Sub-Saharan Africa. Eligible studies will include primary or secondary data on stigma related to HIV risk factors experienced by this population. Studies will be written in French or English and be published between January 1991 and November 2020. All screening and data extraction will be performed in duplicate, and if discrepancies arise, they will be settled by GM’RA, LEN, DD or AO. Findings from this study will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as there will be no human participants and no protected data will be used in this study. We will disseminate findings through peer-reviewed manuscripts, conferences and webinars.

scholarly journals Mapping evidence on the distribution of the costs associated with cancer of prostate, cervix, and female breast in the sub-Saharan Africa: protocol for a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cebisile Ngcamphalala ◽  
Ellinor Ostensson ◽  
Mbuzeleni Hlongwa ◽  
Themba G. Ginindza
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Economic Burden ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Direct And Indirect Costs ◽  
Female Breast ◽  
Sub Saharan

Abstract Background Despite the well-documented information on cancer prevention and management, among noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), globally, cancer continues to be the second leading cause of morbidity and mortality with devastating economic consequences. The burden is disproportionately more among developing countries and the extent of evidence available on the economic consequences (direct and indirect costs) of cancer remains unknown in low-income countries particularly in the sub-Saharan region. Understanding the costs of illness is important to inform decision-making on setting up health care policies and informing economic evaluation of interventions. This study aims to map evidence on the distribution of the economic burden (direct and indirect costs) associated with prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of three predominant cancers: prostate, cervix, and female breast in the sub-Saharan Africa. Methods This scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and will be conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINHAL (via EBSCOhost platform), Science Direct, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Africa-Wide Information, Google Scholar, and WHO Library. We will perform hand-searching of the reference lists of included studies and other relevant documents. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. We will include primary studies from all study designs reporting costs associated with prevention, diagnosis and treatment of prostate, cervical, and breast cancers in the sub-Saharan region. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g., frequencies) and qualitative (e.g., thematic analysis) methods. A narrative summary of findings will be presented. Discussion This review will map the extent of information available on the economic burden (direct and indirect costs) of prostate, cervical, and breast cancers in the sub-Saharan region. Further guidance for future research in the subject area will be discussed. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework

scholarly journals Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Pierre Thabet ◽  
Salmaan Kanji
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Overlapping Data ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Yield Trends

Abstract Background Overviews often identify and synthesise a large number of systematic reviews on the same topic, which is likely to lead to overlap (i.e. duplication) in primary studies across the reviews. Using a primary study result multiple times in the same analysis overstates its sample size and number of events, falsely leading to greater precision in the analysis. This paper aims to: (a) describe types of overlapping data that arise from the same primary studies reported across multiple reviews, (b) describe methods to identify and explain overlap of primary study data, and (c) present six case studies illustrating different approaches to manage overlap. Methods We first updated the search in PubMed for methods from the MOoR framework relating to overlap of primary studies. One author screened the studies titles and abstracts, and any full-text articles retrieved, extracted methods data relating to overlap of primary studies and mapped it to the overlap methods from the MOoR framework. We also describe six case studies as examples of overviews that use specific overlap methods across the steps in the conduct of an overview. For each case study, we discuss potential methodological implications in terms of limitations, efficiency, usability, and resource use. Results Nine methods studies were found and mapped to the methods identified by the MOoR framework to address overlap. Overlap methods were mapped across four steps in the conduct of an overview – the eligibility criteria step, the data extraction step, the assessment of risk of bias step, and the synthesis step. Our overview case studies used multiple methods to reduce overlap at different steps in the conduct of an overview. Conclusions Our study underlines that there is currently no standard methodological approach to deal with overlap in primary studies across reviews. The level of complexity when dealing with overlap can vary depending on the yield, trends and patterns of the included literature and the scope of the overview question. Choosing a method might be dependent on the number of included reviews and their primary studies. Gaps in evaluation of methods to address overlap were found and further investigation in this area is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document