Systematic Reviews: Characteristics and Impact
- PDF / 522,829 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 90 Downloads / 201 Views
Systematic Reviews: Characteristics and Impact Gali Halevi1 · Rachel Pinotti1
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Since 1990, systematic reviews are growing exponentially with thousands being published each year. The objectives of this study were to determine both their temporal characteristics in terms of growth per year, subject areas, and publishing affiliations as well as their scientific impact. In this study we used 106,038 systematic reviews collected from Web of Science in 2019. These articles were analyzed to identify topics and publishing institutions, scientific impact and more. Our data shows that while the number of systematic reviews grows each year, their scientific impact diminishes. This can be seen in both citations and usage metrics. The journals that publish the most systematic reviews are below the normal Impact Factor for journals in the medical and biomedical arenas. There are very few institutions around the world, that produce most of the systematic reviews. Topics vary from one institution to another. The sheer number of systematic reviews publications is not an indication of quality or of impact. In fact, our data show that these are on the decline. There seems to be saturation in this area, which results in less interest in and utility of systematic reviews. Keywords Systematic reviews · Scientific impact · Bibliometrics
Introduction Over the last several decades, systematic reviews have become an integral part of the medical and biomedical literature landscape. Systematic review methodology was pioneered in the 1980s and 1990s [1] and formalized over the ensuing years, culminating with the publication of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [3] and the PRISMA Statement [16]. In the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of published systematic reviews, and with over 30,000 review protocols registered in PROSPERO [19], the number of published reviews is expected to continue to grow. Ioannidis * Gali Halevi [email protected] 1
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Gustave L. Levy Pl #11, New York, NY 10029, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Publishing Research Quarterly
[9] found that in the period from January 1, 1986, to December 4, 2015, PubMed tags 266,782 items as “systematic reviews” and 58,611 as “meta-analyses.” Annual publications between 1991 and 2014 increased 2728% for systematic reviews and 2635% for meta-analyses versus only 153% for all PubMed-indexed items. The overall quality of systematic reviews is also a topic of discussion in the literature. What was once considered a unique and highly sought-after publication used to inform clinical practices and health policy guidelines has become one of the most commonly published types of articles in the medical arena. However, growth does not necessarily indicates quality and objectivity. Bias in systematic reviews is a subject long discussed in various studies. Among the most common issues are: (1) Exclusion of non-En
Data Loading...
