Can a replication revolution resolve the duplication crisis in systematic reviews?

Karunananthan, Sathya; Grimshaw, Jeremy M; Maxwell, Lara; Nguyen, Phi-Yen; Page, Matthew J; Pardo Pardo, Jordi; Petkovic, Jennifer; Vachon, Brigitte; Welch, Vivian Andrea; Tugwell, Peter

doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112125

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Replication of impactful research, such as systematic reviews, would improve, or refute the credibility of any conclusions drawn. Purposeful replication of systematic reviews is argued to play an important role in evaluating the credibility of previously generated knowledge (Karunananthan 2023) and guidance on when a systematic review should be replicated (Tugwell 2020), updated or adapted (Glasziou 2023) is available.…”

Section: Credibility Of the Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inclusion, characteristics and credibility of systematic reviews in doctoral theses: A cross-sectional study of all Medical Faculties in Sweden

Ringsten,

Färnqvist,

Bruschettini

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveSystematic reviews (SRs) are essential to ensure that decisions are informed by an up-to-date and complete understanding of the relevant research evidence. Conducting SRs within a doctoral thesis can reduce redundant, harmful and unethical research, identify knowledge gaps, and help the doctoral student obtain important skills to conduct and use research. The output and learning process of SRs overlaps with the aims of doctoral programs. We aim to explore to what extent SRs are included in doctoral theses from all medical faculties in Sweden, and to describe the type, topic and assess the credibility of the reviews.Study design and settingDuplicate assessors independently searched local and national repositories for doctoral theses published in 2021 within all seven medical faculties in Sweden, and categorized identified reviews based on review type, topic, and credibility using AMSTAR-2.Results5.4% (45/852) of all doctoral theses included a review, and 1.3% (45/3461) of all included studies were reviews. Of these, two thirds (31) were SRs and the rest (14) were broader ‘big picture’ reviews. The most common topics were interventions (42%) and exposure/etiology (32%), with no reviews of diagnostic tests. The majority of the SRs had very low (71%) or low (19%) credibility, and few reached a high (7%) or moderate (3%) credibility. The most common issues were limitations with protocols, limited search strategies, and failure to account for risk of bias in drawn conclusions.ConclusionsFew doctoral students included SRs in their theses, and the few SRs included in doctoral theses generally had a low credibility. Increasing the rate and quality of SRs in doctoral theses can help improve quality and relevance of subsequent primary research, and help students develop important skills. Actions are needed to support doctoral students to conduct high quality SRs.What is new?Few doctoral students included systematic reviews (SRs) in their thesesThe few SRs included in doctoral theses generally had a low credibilityIncreasing the rate of SRs can help improve the relevance of subsequent researchMoreover, to support development of important skills and reach educational goalsActions are needed to support doctoral students to conduct high quality SRs

show abstract

Section: Credibility Of the Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%