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

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Draborg, Eva Andreasen, Jane Nørgaard, Birgitte Juhl, Carsten Bogh Yost, Jennifer Brunnhuber, Klara Robinson, Karen A. Lund, Hans
Abstract	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/
Related Links	https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13643-022-02062-8.pdf
Ending Page	15
Page Count	15
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	20464053
DOI	10.1186/s13643-022-02062-8
Journal	Systematic Reviews
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	11
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2022-09-05
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Medicine Public Health Biomedicine Statistics for Life Sciences Health Sciences Systematic review Evidence-based research Context Medicine/Public Health
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Medicine
Journal Impact Factor	6.3/2023
5-Year Journal Impact Factor	4.5/2023

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review

Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare

The use of systematic reviews for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research: a meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals

Evidence-based mapping of design heterogeneity prior to meta-analysis: a systematic review and evidence synthesis

The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals

Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs

Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence

Mapping and systematic appraisal of umbrella reviews in epidemiological research: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

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

Similar Documents

Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review

Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare

The use of systematic reviews for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research: a meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals

Evidence-based mapping of design heterogeneity prior to meta-analysis: a systematic review and evidence synthesis

The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals

Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs

Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence

Mapping and systematic appraisal of umbrella reviews in epidemiological research: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

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