Evolution of international collaborative research efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews
I. Viguera-Guerra, J. Ruano, M. Aguilar-Luque, J. Gay-Mimbrera, A. Montilla, J.-L. Fernandez-Rueda, J. Fernandez-Chaichio, J.-L. Sanz-Cabanillas, P.-J. Gomez-Arias, A. Velez Garcia-Nieto, F. Gomez-Garcia, B. Isla-Tejera
Abstract
This research-on-research study describes effortsto develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) by analysing demographical and time-course collaborations between international institutions using protocols registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) or published in scientific journals. We have published an a priori protocol to develop this study. Protocols published in scientific journals were searched in MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase databases using the query terms systematic review[Title] AND protocol[Title] from February 2011 to December 2017. Protocols registered at PROSPERO during the same period were obtained by web scraping all non-Cochrane records with a Python script. After excluding protocols with less than 90% fulfilled or duplicated, they were classified as published only in PROSPERO, only in journals, or in both journals and PROSPERO. Results of data and metadata extraction using text-mining processes were curated by two reviewers. Datasets and R scripts are freely available to facilitate reproducibility. We obtained 20,814 protocols of non-Cochrane SRs. While unique protocols by re-viewers institutions from 60 countries were the most frequent, to prepare collaborative protocols a median of 6 (2-150) institutions were involved from 130 different countries. Ranked list of countries involved in overall protocol production were the UK, the U.S., Australia, Brazil, China, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. Most protocols were registered only in PROSPERO. However, the number of protocols published in scientific journals (924) or in both PROSPERO and journals (807) has progressively increased over the last three years. Syst Rev and BMJ Open published more than half of the total protocols. While most productive countries were involved in unique and collaborative protocols, less productive countries only participated in collaborative protocols that were mainly published only in PROSPERO. Our results suggest that although most countries were involved in producing in solitary protocols of non-Cochrane SRs during the study period, it would be desirable to develop new strategies to promote international collaborations, especially with less productive countries.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Assessment of whether published non-Cochrane systematic reviews of nursing follow the review protocols registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): A comparative study
- Overview of biomedical and public health reviews in Ethiopia from 1970 to 2018: trends, methodological qualities, gaps and future directions
Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold, Sisay Mulugeta Alemu, … Balewgizie Sileshi Tegegne·bioRxiv·Sep 4, 2018
- Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts
G. S. McDowell, J. Knutsen, … R. S. Lijek·bioRxiv·Apr 26, 2019
- A comparative analysis reveals irreproducibility in searches of scientific literature
G. Pozsgai, G. Lovei, … M. You·bioRxiv·Mar 20, 2020
- Professional medical writing support and the quality, ethics and timeliness of clinical trial reporting: a systematic review
O. Evuarherhe, W. Gattrell, … C. C. Winchester·bioRxiv·Dec 20, 2018
- A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus)
K. Hair, M. R. Macleod, … The IICARus Collaboration·bioRxiv·Aug 28, 2018