Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No

Chevret, Sylvie; Ferguson, Niall D.; Bellomo, Rinaldo

doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5066-3

Cited by 24 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides the benefits of CDSRs, there has to be some critical issues to be raised. To be named are the lack of comparability, the risks of bias, indirectness, imprecision, and inconsistency [2]. While the CDSR has nearly published 10,000 systematic reviews so far, the underlying architecture has not been analyzed so far using advanced scientometric tools.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A world map of evidence-based medicine: Density equalizing mapping of the Cochrane database of systematic reviews

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews represent the core and backbone of evidence-based medicine (EBM) strategies in all fields of medicine. In order to depict a first global sketch of the international efforts in the Cochrane database systematic reviews (CDSR), we analyzed the systematic reviews of the Cochrane database. Our global maps of systematic reviewing offer intriguing structural insights into the world of EBM strategies. They demonstrate that for the CDSR, the UK and Commonwealth countries take the lead position. Since patients, care providers and health systems all over the world benefit from systematic reviewing, institutions in other countries should increase their commitment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A world map of evidence-based medicine: Density equalizing mapping of the Cochrane database of systematic reviews

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As commented by Alison McCook on the Retraction Watch blog [35] , retractions due to fabricated peer reviews are becoming a trend. With the current global research output with 20,000 journals publishing more than 2 million articles per year and thousands of scientists publishing a paper every ve days [36][37] , researchers worldwide are under great pressure to publish papers indexed by SCI for graduation, promotion, and acquisition of research funds. The need to publish has grown beyond the capacity of the scientists [38][39] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

Shi

Wang

Zhou

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMany previous studies have analyzed the status of retracted publications from different perspectives, but so far no study has focused on systematic reviews (SRs). The purpose of this study is to analyze the retraction status and reasons of non-Cochrane SRs in medicine. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and Embase from their inception until April 18, 2020, as well as Retraction Watch Database and Google Scholar with no language restriction to find non-Cochrane SRs that were retracted for any reason. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. We described the characteristic and reasons of retraction and the duration from publication to retraction.ResultsWe identified 150 non-Cochrane SRs in medicine retracted between 2004 and 2020. The majority of retracted SRs were led by authors from China (n=113, 75.3%) and affiliated with hospitals (n=106, 70.7%). Most SRs were published in journals with an impact factor ≤3 (n=85, 56.7%). The largest proportion of retraction notices were issued by the publisher and editor(s) jointly (n=60, 40.0%); seven did not report this information. Fraudulent peer-review (n=61, 37.9%) was the most common reason for retraction, followed by unreliable data (n=41, 25.5%) meaning errors in study selection or data analysis. The median time between publication and retraction was 14.0 months. SRs retracted due to research misconduct took longer to retract than SRs retracted because of honest error. ConclusionsThe situation with retracted SRs is critical worldwide, and in particular in China. The most common reasons for retraction are fraudulent peer-review and unreliable data, and in most cases the study is retracted more than a year after publication. Efforts should be made to improve the process of peer review and adherence to the COPE retraction guidance, and authors should strengthen their skills in SR methodology.

show abstract

“…For instance, different studies may differ in terms of the case-mix of participants, the version of the intervention that is provided, the outcome evaluation or as a result of potential biases. [4][5][6][7][8][9] Random-effect meta-analyses are commonly employed to model such heterogeneity. Under a random-effects model, the treatment effects in the considered studies are supposed to have been sampled from a distribution of true effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking meta-analysis: Addressing problems of non-transportability when combining treatment effects across patient populations

Porcher

Vansteelandt

2019

Revue d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No

Cited by 24 publications

References 16 publications

A world map of evidence-based medicine: Density equalizing mapping of the Cochrane database of systematic reviews

A world map of evidence-based medicine: Density equalizing mapping of the Cochrane database of systematic reviews

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

Rethinking meta-analysis: Addressing problems of non-transportability when combining treatment effects across patient populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About