The use of systematic reviews to justify phase III ophthalmology trials: an analysis

Torgerson, Trevor; Evans, Sheridan; Johnson, Bradley S.; Vassar, Matt

doi:10.1038/s41433-020-0771-x

Cited by 7 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this was not succeeded by an increased rate of contextualising, as the rate of citing or updating an SR did not differ between the two groups of meta-research studies. In the same way, the meta-research studies did not display any difference depending on whether the area of interest for the original studies was focused on a specific speciality [ 19 – 23 , 25 , 26 , 32 ] or not [ 18 , 24 , 27 – 31 ]. Thus, practising EBR in the way of contextualising new clinical results has not improved over time and is not conditional on the number of original studies in the meta-research studies nor the area of interest.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Two meta-research studies deviated from this approach; one meta-research study examined MA included in a particular SR and MA [ 32 ] and one meta-research study was bounded to a sample of original studies from a specific database [ 20 ]. In terms of the clinical research area, nine meta-research studies stated a specific focus on anaesthesiology [ 26 ], pharmacological treatment [ 32 ], physiotherapy [ 20 ], orthopaedia [ 21 ], obstetrics and gynaecology [ 22 ], urology [ 19 ], ophthalmology and optometry [ 25 ], general medicine [ 24 ] or surgery [ 23 ], while the remaining six meta-research studies did not single out a specific speciality. The study by Hoderlein et al [ 20 ] included two cohorts: one from 2001 and one from 2015.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No data on SRs in the ‘Discussion’ section RCTs published in four high-impact urology journals inconsistently referenced an SR as justification, and 39.1% of our entire sample did not reference an SR at all. Torgeson T, Evans S, Johnson BS et al (2020) [ 25 ] To evaluate the use of SRs to justify conducting RCTs in top ophthalmology and optometry journals. Cross-sectional RCTs published in the top five Google Scholar h-5 index journals Ophthalmology and Optometry USA December 5, 2018 Ophthalmology and optometry 152 RCTs included.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The meta-research studies employed different reporting terms and phrases to assess the use of SRs to place results in context . Meta-research studies used terms such as integrated results [ 20 , 29 – 31 ], referred to a relevant SR [ 18 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 32 ], stated a comparison, but no further discussion [ 31 ], cited an SR [ 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 ], attempted to discuss or explain in relation to other trials [ 31 ] and summarised some evidence [ 20 ]. We applied the authors’ interpretation straightforward.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our applied definition of the use of SRs to place results in context as individually interpreted by the authors naturally has implications for our results. Meta-research studies used terms such as integrated results [ 20 , 29 – 31 ], referred to relevant SR [ 18 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 32 ], stated a comparison, but no further discussion [ 31 ], attempted to discuss or explain in relation to other trials [ 31 ], cite [ 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 ] and summarised some evidence [ 20 ]. This broad definition implies that our sample of original studies includes a wide range of studies from those citing an SR to those updating an SR or conducting an MA and is dependent on the authors’ interpretations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Systematic reviews are rarely used to contextualise new results—a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Results of new studies should be interpreted in the context of what is already known to compare results and build the state of the science. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesise results from meta-research studies examining if original studies within health use systematic reviews to place their results in the context of earlier, similar studies. Methods We searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies reporting the use of systematic reviews to place results of original clinical studies in the context of existing studies. The primary outcome was the percentage of original studies included in the meta-research studies using systematic reviews or meta-analyses placing new results in the context of existing studies. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the mean proportion of original studies placing their results in the context of earlier studies. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Results We included 15 meta-research studies, representing 1724 original studies. The mean percentage of original studies within these meta-research studies placing their results in the context of existing studies was 30.7% (95% CI [23.8%, 37.6%], I2=87.4%). Only one of the meta-research studies integrated results in a meta-analysis, while four integrated their results within a systematic review; the remaining cited or referred to a systematic review. The results of this systematic review are characterised by a high degree of heterogeneity and should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusion Our systematic review demonstrates a low rate of and great variability in using systematic reviews to place new results in the context of existing studies. On average, one third of the original studies contextualised their results. Improvement is still needed in researchers’ use of prior research systematically and transparently—also known as the use of an evidence-based research approach, to contribute to the accumulation of new evidence on which future studies should be based. Systematic review registration Open Science registration number https://osf.io/8gkzu/

show abstract