The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Uttley, Lesley ^a   Montgomery, Paul ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Affiliation; Bias; Meta bias; Research; Reviewer; Team

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONFLICT OF INTEREST; HUMAN; INFLUENCE; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPY; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; SPONSORSHIP BIAS; STATISTICAL BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TEAMWORK; LITERATURE; ORGANIZATION; RESEARCH; SELECTION BIAS;

HUMANS; ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION; RESEARCH; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 85026535107     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0548-x     Document Type: Note

References (44)

1. Swan, J., et al., Evidence in management decisions (EMD)-advancing knowledge utilization in healthcare management. Final Report. NIHR Health Services and Delivery Programme, 2012.
2. Ioannidis JP, et al. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(10):e1002264.
3. Page MJ, et al. Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e011863.
4. Flacco ME, et al. Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(7):811-20.
5. Moher D, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):e78.
6. Page, M.J., et al., Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. The Cochrane Library, 2014.
7. Pussegoda K, et al. Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1):117.
8. Iqbal SA, et al. Reproducible research practices and transparency across the biomedical literature. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(1):e1002333.
9. Ioannidis JP. Discussion: why "an estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature" is false. Biostatistics. 2014;15(1):28-36.
10. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 1998;316(7124):61.
11. Munder T, et al. Researcher allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: an overview of reviews. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(4):501-11.
12. Goodman S, Dickersin K. Metabias: a challenge for comparative effectiveness research. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(1):61-2.
13. Elia N, et al. How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors. BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e010442.
14. Humaidan P, Polyzos NP. (Meta) analyze this: systematic reviews might lose credibility. Nat Med. 2012;18(9):1321.
15. Borah R, et al. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012545.
16. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2831-4.
17. Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One. 2010;5(3):e9810.
18. Page MJ, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016:13(5).
19. Moher D, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-9.
20. Moher D, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015;4(1):1.
21. Wasiak, J., et al., Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management. International wound journal, 2016.
22. Dudden RF, Protzko SL. The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian. Medical reference services quarterly. 2011;30(3):301-15.
23. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
24. Ebrahim S, et al. Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:155-63.
25. Gómez-García, F., et al., Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on psoriasis: role of funding sources, conflict of interest, and bibliometric indices as predictors of methodological quality. British Journal of Dermatology, 2017.
26. Bes-Rastrollo M, et al. Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2014;10(12):e1001578.
27. Spiegelhalter D. The importance of what you don't see. In: [Blog] Understanding Uncertainty; 2016.
28. Eisner M, et al. Disclosure of financial conflicts of interests in interventions to improve child psychosocial health: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0142803.
29. Lieb K, et al. Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2016:6(4).
30. Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP. Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? BMJ. 2012;345:e7031.
31. Fleurence RL, et al. Engaging patients and stakeholders in research proposal review: the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(2):122-30.
32. Basch E, et al. Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association. 2012;307(15):1636-40.
33. Catalá-López F, et al. Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis. BMC Med. 2014;12(1):1.
34. Lomas J. Using 'linkage and exchange' to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff. 2000;19(3):236.
35. Boudreau, K., et al., The novelty paradox & bias for normal science: evidence from randomized medical grant proposal evaluations. 2012.
36. Steckler A, McLeroy KR. The importance of external validity. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(1):9-10.
37. Petticrew M. Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from 'what works' to 'what happens'. Systematic reviews. 2015;4(1):1.
38. Nasser M, et al. An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane Reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(5):511-21.
39. Burford BJ, et al. Testing the PRISMA-Equity 2012 reporting guideline: the perspectives of systematic review authors. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e75122.
40. Ioannidis JP, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166-75.
41. Shea BJ, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7
42. Andrews J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):719-25.
43. Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2008;336(7650):924.
44. Glasziou P, Djulbegovic B, Burls A. Are systematic reviews more cost-effective than randomised trials? Lancet. 2006;367(9528):2057-8.