• General medical • Overlapping reviews/redundancy
Problem(s)
• Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
Article Type
Non-systematic literature review
First Author Country
United States
Aim
To highlight the huge increase in published systematic reviews since 1991.
Level of Investigation
Descriptive
Summary of Findings
The authors conduct a search of PubMed to highlight an increase in the publication rate of 2,728% for systematic reviews versus only 153% for all PubMed indexed items between 1991 to 2014. The articles discusses trends in the explosion of publication of meta-analyses more generally but highlights that authors of systematic reviews are increasingly conducted by third-party contractors or consultancy companies, paid for by pharmaceutical companies. These may or may not be published depending on the results.
Number of systematic reviews included
1
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed
1
Treatment impacted
No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted
Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description
Does the article have a publicly available protocol?
Not Applicable
Did the review team include both methodological and clinical experts?
Not Applicable
Sampling strategy for obtaining the systematic reviews under assessment
Purposeful
Was the sample size of systematic reviews subject to any formal sample size or power calculation?
Not Applicable
Were any or all of the study selection and data extraction performed in duplicate?
Not Applicable
Were any statistical adjustments made to correct for confounding?
Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?
