University Library
  • Login
A gateway to Melbourne's research publications
Minerva Access is the University's Institutional Repository. It aims to collect, preserve, and showcase the intellectual output of staff and students of the University of Melbourne for a global audience.
View Item 
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne Medical School
  • Clinical Pathology
  • Clinical Pathology - Research Publications
  • View Item
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne Medical School
  • Clinical Pathology
  • Clinical Pathology - Research Publications
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    A survey of prevalence of narrative and systematic reviews in five major medical journals

    Thumbnail
    Download
    Published version (583.0Kb)

    Citations
    Scopus
    Web of Science
    Altmetric
    13
    12
    Author
    Faggion, CM; Bakas, NP; Wasiak, J
    Date
    2017-12-28
    Source Title
    BMC Medical Research Methodology
    Publisher
    BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
    University of Melbourne Author/s
    Wasiak, Jason
    Affiliation
    Clinical Pathology
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Document Type
    Journal Article
    Citations
    Faggion, C. M., Bakas, N. P. & Wasiak, J. (2017). A survey of prevalence of narrative and systematic reviews in five major medical journals. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 17 (1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0453-y.
    Access Status
    Open Access
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11343/255636
    DOI
    10.1186/s12874-017-0453-y
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews may provide less biased evidence than narrative reviews because they observe a strict methodology, similarly to primary studies. Hence, for clinical research questions, systematic reviews should be the study design of choice. It would be important to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals. Researchers and clinicians give great value to articles published in such scientific journals. This study sought to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews in the five highest-ranked general medical journals and investigate the associations among type of review, number of citations, and impact factor (IF). METHODS: We surveyed the five highest-ranked medical journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine) for narrative and systematic reviews published between June 2015 and June 2016. We independently selected and extracted the data from the reviews by strictly following the pre-determined eligibility criteria (Systematic and narrative reviews that focused on the management of diseases). We conducted regression analyses to investigate the associations among review type, number of citations, and IF. We also descriptively reported narrative reviews containing some methodology that might be reproducible. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-five reviews were included: 75 (27%) systematic; 126 (46%) narrative with some methodology reported, and 74 (27%) narrative reviews. In comparison to systematic reviews, narrative reviews were more frequently published in journals with higher IF (risk ratio [RR] = 1.114 (95% CI 1.080 to 1.149). Systematic reviews received more citations than narrative reviews (group formed by narrative and narrative with some methodology reported (RR = 0.985 95% CI 0.978 to 0.991). CONCLUSIONS: Non-systematic evidence is the most prevalent type of evidence in reviews published in the five highest-ranked general medical journals. Narrative reviews were more frequently published in journals with higher IF. We recommend that journals limit their space for narrative information, and to address clinical research questions, these journals consider publishing systematic evidence exclusively.

    Export Reference in RIS Format     

    Endnote

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".

    Refworks

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References


    Collections
    • Minerva Elements Records [45770]
    • Clinical Pathology - Research Publications [385]
    Minerva AccessDepositing Your Work (for University of Melbourne Staff and Students)NewsFAQs

    BrowseCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    My AccountLoginRegister
    StatisticsMost Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors