Abstract
Introduction
Systematic reviews consolidate evidence and drive clinical practice guidelines, cost-effective analyses, and policy decisions; therefore, their annual publication rate has increased significantly. We used bibliometric analysis to identify research trends, the most searched topics, authors and organizations productivity and collaboration, the research network, and research gaps by examining keywords frequency and systematic reviews distribution.
Methods
We searched the PubMed database for systematic reviews using the systematic review filter described by Salvador-Oliván and coauthors, which has higher recall than the PubMed SR filter. The search period was from 1934 until February 3, 2023. Microsoft Excel and the VOSviewer application were used for analyzing yearly trends, institutions, authors, and keywords, as well as to create tables and network figures.
Results
A total of 378,685 articles were published. The number of articles published has been rising steadily during the past five years. The University of Toronto and McMaster University in Canada (n = 1415 and n = 1386) were the leading contributory universities. “Genetic predisposition to disease”, “postoperative complications”, “neoplasm”, “stroke”, and “covid-19” were the top 5 occurring keywords that are particular to a specialty in systematic reviews.
Conclusion
This bibliometric research examined systematic reviews, publication trends, the majority of publishing disciplines, authors and organizations productivity, and collaborative efforts. The results of this study could prove to be an invaluable resource for researchers, policymakers, and healthcare professionals.
References
Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, et al. Updating Systematic Reviews. Health (San Francisco). 2010;(16). Accessed March 4, 2023. http://europepm c.org/books/NBK44099
Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ. 1998;317(7156):465-468. doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7156.465
Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, et al. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: VI. How to Use an Overview. JAMA. 1994;272(17):1367-1371. doi:10.100 1/jama.1994.03520170077040
Scholten RJPM, Kremer LCM. [Systemic reviews as a basis for guidelines]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2004;148(6):262-264. Accessed March 4, 2023. https://europepmc.org/article/med/15004951
Haines A, Jones R. Implementing findings of research. BMJ. 1994;308(6942):1488-1492. doi:10.113 6/bmj.308.6942.1488
Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero- Avilés R. Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from pubmed. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109(4):561-574. doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.1 223
Boluyt N, Tjosvold L, Lefebvre C, Klassen TP, Offringa M. Usefulness of Systematic Review Search Strategies in Finding Child Health Systematic Reviews in MEDLINE. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162(2):111-116. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.200 7.40
Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, et al. Obstacles to answering doctors’ questions about patient care with evidence: qualitative study. BMJ. 2002;324(7339):710. doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7339.710
Ioannidis JPA. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485-514. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12210
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):e78. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078
Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross- Sectional Study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028. do i:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
Ioannidis JPA, Chang CQ, Lam TK, Schully SD, Khoury MJ. The Geometric Increase in Meta-Analyses from China in the Genomic Era. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e65602. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065602
Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1573-1586. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00307-4
Ioannidis JPA, Gwinn M, Little J, et al. A road map for efficient and reliable human genome epidemiology. Nat Genet. 2006;38(1):3-5. doi:10.103 8/ng0106-3
Khoury MJ, Little J, Gwinn M, Ioannidis JP. On the synthesis and interpretation of consistent but weak gene-disease associations in the era of genome-wide association studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(2):439-445. doi:10.1093/ije/dyl253
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. do i:10.3322/caac.21660
Hoffmann T, Erueti C, Thorning S, Glasziou P. The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties. BMJ. 2012;344(7861):e3223. doi:10.1136/ bmj.e3223
Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2013;382(9904):1575-1586. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(1 3)61611-6
Oliver S, Bangpan M, Stansfield C, Stewart R. Capacity for conducting systematic reviews in low- and middle-income countries: A rapid appraisal. Heal Res Policy Syst. 2015;13(1):1-8. doi:10.1186/S12961-0 15-0012-0/FIGURES/2
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 High Yield Medical Reviews