Frequencies and percentages of overall and per domain GRADE rating for Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

Additional file 2.

Objectives: A rapidly developing scenario like a pandemic requires the prompt production of high-quality systematic reviews, which can be automated using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. We evaluated the application of AI tools in COVID-19 evidence syntheses. Study design: After prospective registration of the review protocol, we automated the download of all open-access COVID-19 systematic reviews in the COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence database, indexed them for AI-related keywords, and located those that used AI tools. We compared their journals’ JCR Impact Factor, citations per month, screening workloads, completion times (from pre-registration to preprint or submission to a journal) and AMSTAR-2 methodology assessments (maximum score 13 points) with a set of publication date matched control reviews without AI. Results: Of the 3999 COVID-19 reviews, 28 (0.7%, 95% CI 0.47-1.03%) made use of AI. On average, compared to controls (n=64), AI reviews were published in journals...

Multiple linear regression determinants of reporting quality of RCTs.

BackgroundA high-quality search strategy is considered an essential component of systematic reviews but many do not contain reproducible search strategies. It is unclear if low reproducibility spans medical disciplines, is affected by librarian/search specialist involvement or has improved with increased awareness of reporting guidelines.ObjectivesTo examine the reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews published in Pediatrics, Surgery or Cardiology journals in 2012 and determine rates and predictors of including a reproducible search strategy.MethodsWe identified all systematic reviews published in 2012 in the ten highest impact factor journals in Pediatrics, Surgery and Cardiology. Each search strategy was coded to indicate what elements were reported and whether the overall search was reproducible. Reporting and reproducibility rates were compared across disciplines and we measured the influence of librarian/search specialist involvement, discipline or endorsement of a reporting guideline on search reproducibility.Results272 articles from 25 journals were included. Reporting of search elements ranged widely from 91% of articles naming search terms to 33% providing a full search strategy and 22% indicating the date the search was executed. Only 22% of articles provided at least one reproducible search strategy and 13% provided a reproducible strategy for all databases searched in the article. Librarians or search specialists were reported as involved in 17% of articles. There were strong disciplinary differences on the reporting of search elements. In the multivariable analysis, only discipline (Pediatrics) was a significant predictor of the inclusion of a reproducible search strategy.ConclusionsDespite recommendations to report full, reproducible search strategies, many articles still do not. In addition, authors often report a single strategy as covering all databases searched, further decreasing reproducibility. Further research is needed to determine how disciplinary culture may encourage reproducibility and the role that journal editors and peer reviewers could play.

Australian Systematic Botany Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - Australian Systematic Botany is an international journal devoted to the systematics, taxonomy, and related aspects of biogeography and evolution of all algae, fungi and plants, including fossils. Descriptive taxonomic papers should normally constitute a comprehensive treatment of a group. Short papers on individual species and nomenclatural papers must contain significant new information of broader interest to be considered. The prestigious L.A.S. Johnson Review Series is published. Other review articles will also be considered. All papers are peer reviewed. Indexed & Abstracted details: BIOSIS CAB Abstracts Current Contents/Agriculture, Biology & Environmental Sciences EBSCO/EBSCO Discovery Elsevier BIOBASE/Current Awareness in Biological Sciences Kew Index ProQuest (Ex Libris) Science Citation Index Scopus

List of trust impact factors, data is from 112 papers we used in the software trust literature review.

Background

Laparoscopic surgery (LS) is hypothesized to result in milder proinflammatory reactions due to less severe operative trauma, which may contribute to the observed clinical benefits after LS. However, previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the impact of LS on immunocompetence are outdated, limited and heterogeneous. Therefore, the humoral response after laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer (CRC) resections was evaluated in a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods

Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) measuring parameters of humoral immunity after LS compared to open surgery (OS) in adult patients with CRC of any stage. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED), Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP (World Health Organization) were systematically searched. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. Weighted inverse variance meta-analysis of mean differences was performed for C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, tumour necrosis factor (TNF)α and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) using the random-effects method. Methods were prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021264324). Results

Twenty RCTs with 1131 participants were included. Narrative synthesis and meta-analysis up to 8 days after surgery was performed. Quantitative synthesis found concentrations to be significantly lower after LS at 0–2 h after surgery (IL-8), at 3–9 h (CRP, IL-6, IL-8, TNFα) and at postoperative day 1 (CRP, IL-6, IL-8, VEGF). At 3–9 h, IL-6 was notably lower in the LS group by 86.71 pg/ml (mean difference [MD] − 86.71 pg/ml [− 125.05, − 48.37], p < 0.00001). Combined narratively, 13 studies reported significantly lower concentrations of considered parameters in LS patients, whereas only one study reported lower inflammatory markers (for CRP and IL-6) after OS. Conclusion

The increase in postoperative concentrations of several proinflammatory parameters was significantly less pronounced after LS than after OS in this meta-analysis. Overall, the summarized evidence reinforces the view of a lower induction of inflammation due to LS

† Regions in which submissions to HTA agencies generally require a NMA;* 17 studies published in journals with no associated impact factor;** 3 studies for which source of study support was unclear;*** 77 studies reported both fixed and random effects models, 38 studies did not report models used;**** Consistency only reported for studies with a closed loopAssessment of network meta-analysis study characteristics.

‡2011 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2012). The highest impact factor for oral health journals is 3.961 (Periodontology 2000).†Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), where Cochrane SRs are published, was classified as a general journal.§Includes Cochrane SRs only (CDSR’s impact factor = 5.912).*Includes SRs published in oral health journals without impact factor.¶Includes SRs published in non-oral health journals.‡Does not equal 100% for overall, as Cochrane SRs were not considered in the analysis.N/A, not applicable.

Findings from current and previous studies on assessment of publication and outcome reporting biases in systematic reviews of health literature.

B, regression coefficient; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error.

Published RCTs that were registered before or during trial completion and have major discrepancies with their trial registries and the effect of these discrepancies on the statistical significance of published outcomes, by funding source.

Sensitivity analysis by excluding RCTs with total citations greater than 500 without transforming the outcome variable.

BackgroundAnesthesiology research is growing at a rapid pace. It is essential to understand the scope and trends over time to identify gaps and future areas for growth. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMA) are summaries of the best available evidence to address a specific research question via a comprehensive literature search, in-depth analyses, and synthesis of results. High-quality SRMA are increasingly used and play an essential role in medical research.ObjectiveWe aimed to explore the trends of SRMA in indexed anesthesia journals.MethodsSRMA published in indexed anesthesia journals from 2013 to 2023 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. Data were presented via descriptive statistics. We used CiteSpace 6.1.R6 to analyze countries, institutions, journals, authors, and keywords through visual maps to explore the research hotspots and trends. The journal’s Journal Citation Reports partition, impact factor, annual publications, journals H-index, and a number of highly-cited papers were calculated in the WoS database.ResultsA total of 34 indexed anesthesia journals and 3,004 SRMA were included. The year 2021 was the year with the most SRMA (385/3,004). Out of the 3,004 SRMAs, 36 (0.03%) were highly cited papers, and 22 of the 36 highly cited papers focused on “pain management.” BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA had the highest 5-year impact factor (9.6) in 2022 Journal Citation Reports, the most significant number of publications (268/3,004), the highest total number of citations (13,173/86,145), and the most significant number of SRMAs cited more than 100 (36/160). ANAESTHESIA achieved the highest impact factor in the 2022 Journal Citation Reports (10.7) and the highest average annual citations (58.82). PAIN had the highest number of highly cited papers (15/36). The United States of America was the most productive country, with 823/3,004 SRMAs. University Toronto had the highest number of publications (245/3,004). The most frequent of keywords was the topic “Pain Management” (1,622/29.1%).ConclusionThis present study would be valuable to practitioners, academics, researchers, and students in understanding the dynamics of progress in anesthesiology.

Linear model built by a stepwise approach, with a square root transformation of the total citation outcome variable.

Characteristics of randomized controlled trials published in the three highest-impact journals between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015.

Systematic reviews play a crucial role in evidence-based practices as they consolidate research findings to inform decision-making. However, it is essential to assess the quality of systematic reviews to prevent biased or inaccurate conclusions. This paper underscores the importance of adhering to recognized guidelines, such as the PRISMA statement and Cochrane Handbook. These recommendations advocate for systematic approaches and emphasize the documentation of critical components, including the search strategy and study selection. A thorough evaluation of methodologies, research quality, and overall evidence strength is essential during the appraisal process. Identifying potential sources of bias and review limitations, such as selective reporting or trial heterogeneity, is facilitated by tools like the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the AMSTAR 2 checklist. The assessment of included studies emphasizes formulating clear research questions and employing appropriate search strategies to construct robust reviews. Relevance and bias reduction are ensured through meticulous selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Accurate data synthesis, including appropriate data extraction and analysis, is necessary for drawing reliable conclusions. Meta-analysis, a statistical method for aggregating trial findings, improves the precision of treatment impact estimates. Systematic reviews should consider crucial factors such as addressing biases, disclosing conflicts of interest, and acknowledging review and methodological limitations. This paper aims to enhance the reliability of systematic reviews, ultimately improving decision-making in healthcare, public policy, and other domains. It provides academics, practitioners, and policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of the evaluation process, empowering them to make well-informed decisions based on robust data.

Objective: Systematic reviews are increasingly used as sources of evidence in clinical cardiology guidelines. In the present study, we aimed to assess the quality of published systematic reviews in high impact cardiology journals.Methods: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2019 in five general cardiology journals with the highest impact factor (according to Clarivate Analytics 2019). We extracted data on eligibility criteria, methodological characteristics, bias assessments, and sources of funding. Further, we assessed the quality of retrieved reviews using the AMSTAR tool.Results: A total of 352 systematic reviews were assessed. The AMSTAR quality score was low or critically low in 71% (95% CI: 65.7–75.4) of the assessed reviews. Sixty-four reviews (18.2%, 95% CI: 14.5–22.6) registered/published their protocol. Only 221 reviews (62.8%, 95% CI: 57.6–67.7) reported adherence to the EQUATOR checklists, 208 reviews (58.4%, 95% CI: 53.9–64.1) assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and 177 reviews (52.3%, 95% CI: 45.1–55.5) assessed the risk of publication bias in their primary outcome analysis. The primary outcome was statistically significant in 274 (79.6%, 95% CI: 75.1–83.6) and had statistical heterogeneity in 167 (48.5%, 95% CI: 43.3–53.8) reviews. The use and sources of external funding was not disclosed in 87 reviews (24.7%, 95% CI: 20.5–29.5). Data analysis showed that the existence of publication bias was significantly associated with statistical heterogeneity of the primary outcome and that complex design, larger sample size, and higher AMSTAR quality score were associated with higher citation metrics.Conclusion: Our analysis uncovered widespread gaps in conducting and reporting systematic reviews in cardiology. These findings highlight the importance of rigorous editorial and peer review policies in systematic review publishing, as well as education of the investigators and clinicians on the synthesis and interpretation of evidence.

† We limited our literature search to studies published in the medical literature. We did not include NMAs submitted to national health technology assessment agencies unless also published in the Ovid-MEDLINE database.* ‘Other countries’ includes Greece, Ireland, Singapore, Australia, Cameroon, Denmark, Finland, Hong Kong, Korea, Norway, Poland, and Portugal.Frequency of network meta-analyses (n = 210) by year, indication, and country.