A survey of prevalence of narrative and systematic reviews in five major medical journals
- PMID: 29281975
- PMCID: PMC5746017
- DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0453-y
A survey of prevalence of narrative and systematic reviews in five major medical journals
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.
Keywords: Bias; Journal impact factor; Methodological study; Review; Systematic review.
Conflict of interest statement
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Figures
Similar articles
-
A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer.BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 25;8(3):e020869. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020869. BMJ Open. 2018. PMID: 29581210 Free PMC article.
-
Medical journals' conflicts of interest in the publication of book reviews.Sci Eng Ethics. 2003 Oct;9(4):471-83. doi: 10.1007/s11948-003-0045-6. Sci Eng Ethics. 2003. PMID: 14652900
-
Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts.BMC Med. 2003 Nov 24;1:2. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-1-2. BMC Med. 2003. PMID: 14633274 Free PMC article.
-
The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature.J Clin Nurs. 2014 Feb;23(3-4):315-32. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12132. Epub 2013 Mar 13. J Clin Nurs. 2014. PMID: 23489745 Review.
-
Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.Nurs Outlook. 2015 Jul-Aug;63(4):446-455.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.11.020. Epub 2014 Dec 4. Nurs Outlook. 2015. PMID: 26187084 Review.
Cited by
-
MAFLD as part of systemic metabolic dysregulation.Hepatol Int. 2024 Oct;18(Suppl 2):834-847. doi: 10.1007/s12072-024-10660-y. Epub 2024 Apr 9. Hepatol Int. 2024. PMID: 38594474 Review.
-
Top-50 cited articles on cysticercosis and neurocysticercosis.Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Mar 1;103(9):e37268. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037268. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024. PMID: 38428894 Free PMC article.
-
Managing depression with complementary and alternative medicine therapies: a scientometric analysis and visualization of research activities.Front Psychiatry. 2023 Nov 15;14:1288346. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1288346. eCollection 2023. Front Psychiatry. 2023. PMID: 38034915 Free PMC article.
-
Health in the Skies: A Narrative Review of the Issues Faced by Commercial Airline Pilots.Cureus. 2023 Apr 22;15(4):e38000. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38000. eCollection 2023 Apr. Cureus. 2023. PMID: 37223152 Free PMC article. Review.
-
How to Conduct a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Clinicians.Respir Care. 2023 Sep;68(9):1295-1308. doi: 10.4187/respcare.10971. Epub 2023 Apr 18. Respir Care. 2023. PMID: 37072163 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Faggion CM Jr, Málaga L, Monje A, Trescher AL, Listl S, Alarcón MA. The 300 most cited articles published in periodontology. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; [Epub ahead of print] - PubMed
-
- Lancet Oncology. http://thelancet.com/lanonc/information-for-authors/article-types-manusc.... Accessed 26 January 2017.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous