Survey of instructions for authors on how to report an update of a systematic review: guidance is needed.

Evidence-Based Medicine Pub Date : 2017-04-01 Epub Date: 2017-01-30 DOI:10.1136/ebmed-2016-110609
Dawid Pieper, Tim Mathes
{"title":"Survey of instructions for authors on how to report an update of a systematic review: guidance is needed.","authors":"Dawid Pieper, Tim Mathes","doi":"10.1136/ebmed-2016-110609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Systematic reviews have become the cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare. Approximately half of the systematic reviews are out of date after 5.5 years, and keeping them up to date remains a huge challenge. Despite new guidance on when and how to update systematic reviews, there seems to be a lack of guidance on how to report updates of systematic reviews. Therefore, we decided to systematically analyse instruction for authors in biomedical journals regarding guidance on reporting updates of systematic reviews. We conducted a survey investigating 250 journals. The journal list was derived by a twofold strategy. First, we chose a list of journals that were included in a recently published survey of systematic reviews. This list was augmented by a PubMed search for published updates of systematic reviews. For each journal, we checked the instructions for authors for any content or links related to updating systematic reviews in September 2016. Out of 250 journals, we found only one with guidance clearly related to updates of systematic reviews, namely the BioMed Central journal, <i>Systematic Reviews</i> Nevertheless, concrete guidance on reporting is lacking as it is stated that authors are encouraged to be innovative in how to report and present systematic review updates. This makes clear that there remains a fundamental uncertainty of how authors willing to update a previously published systematic review should act as even the leading journal in evidence syntheses does not have clear guidance. Debate is necessary on how to report updates of systematic reviews.</p>","PeriodicalId":12182,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Systematic reviews have become the cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare. Approximately half of the systematic reviews are out of date after 5.5 years, and keeping them up to date remains a huge challenge. Despite new guidance on when and how to update systematic reviews, there seems to be a lack of guidance on how to report updates of systematic reviews. Therefore, we decided to systematically analyse instruction for authors in biomedical journals regarding guidance on reporting updates of systematic reviews. We conducted a survey investigating 250 journals. The journal list was derived by a twofold strategy. First, we chose a list of journals that were included in a recently published survey of systematic reviews. This list was augmented by a PubMed search for published updates of systematic reviews. For each journal, we checked the instructions for authors for any content or links related to updating systematic reviews in September 2016. Out of 250 journals, we found only one with guidance clearly related to updates of systematic reviews, namely the BioMed Central journal, Systematic Reviews Nevertheless, concrete guidance on reporting is lacking as it is stated that authors are encouraged to be innovative in how to report and present systematic review updates. This makes clear that there remains a fundamental uncertainty of how authors willing to update a previously published systematic review should act as even the leading journal in evidence syntheses does not have clear guidance. Debate is necessary on how to report updates of systematic reviews.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于如何报告系统综述更新的作者说明调查:需要指导。
系统综述已成为循证医疗的基石。大约有一半的系统综述在 5.5 年后就会过时,而保持系统综述的更新仍然是一个巨大的挑战。尽管在何时以及如何更新系统综述方面有了新的指导,但在如何报告系统综述的更新方面似乎缺乏指导。因此,我们决定系统地分析生物医学期刊中有关系统综述更新报告指南的作者指南。我们对 250 种期刊进行了调查。期刊列表是通过双重策略得出的。首先,我们选择了近期发表的系统综述调查中所包含的期刊列表。此外,我们还在 PubMed 上搜索了已发表的系统综述更新,从而扩充了这份期刊列表。对于每份期刊,我们都检查了作者须知中是否有与 2016 年 9 月更新系统综述相关的内容或链接。在 250 种期刊中,我们发现只有一种期刊有明确的与系统综述更新相关的指导,即 BioMed Central 期刊《系统综述》(Systematic Reviews)。这清楚地表明,即使是证据综述领域的权威期刊也没有明确的指导,对于愿意更新以前发表的系统综述的作者应该如何行动,仍然存在根本性的不确定性。有必要就如何报告系统综述的更新展开讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today: Early cholecystectomy is cost-effective in symptomatic cholelithiasis requiring hospitalization. Intensive glucose control in patients with diabetes prevents onset and progression of microalbuminuria, but effects on end-stage kidney disease are still uncertain. Prophylactic platelet transfusion does not reduce risk of clinical bleeding in adults with dengue and thrombocytopaenia. A meta-analysis of positive airway pressure treatment for cardiovascular prevention: why mix apples and pears? Long-acting reversible contraception acceptability and satisfaction is high among adolescents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1