Abstract
BackgroundSynthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as ‘secondary research’ and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.MethodsWe identified the 118 journals labelled as “core clinical journals” by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals’ editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.ResultsThe editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as “Review” or “Feature article”. Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.DiscussionCurrently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of ‘original research’ in the context of SRs is warranted.
Highlights
Since the first comparative study to answer a therapeutic question by James Lind in the 18th century [1], the number of medical research studies is ever increasing
To characterize the group of non-responding journals, we developed a three step process that entailed 1) a PubMed search for systematic reviews classified as meta-analyses published in these journals in 2009, 2) hand-searching the content published in 2009 of journals for which we did not identify a meta-analysis in our PubMed search, 3) evaluation of author instructions of journals from point 2 to determine whether they would have published systematic reviews
Most of the journals represented by these editors published systematic reviews
Summary
Since the first comparative study to answer a therapeutic question by James Lind in the 18th century [1], the number of medical research studies is ever increasing. Evidence-based medicine has been called a ‘‘new paradigm’’ because it asks questions about health care in an answerable format and considers the best evidence available from clinical research. In contrast to classical narrative reviews, systematic reviews use an explicit and rigorous methodology They start with a clearly stated set of clinically relevant questions and pre-defined criteria for study inclusion. [6] Presence or absence of a meta-analysis does not represent a quality criterion since it is directly dependent on the studies identified and data available for inclusion in the systematic review. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as ‘secondary research’ and denied the status of original research. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
