Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Received: 18 September 2023
|
Accepted: 14 March 2024
DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12050
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author
instructions: Findings and recommendations for
editorial teams
Nele S. Pauwels
1
|Muguet Koobasi
1
|Andra Fry
2
|
Thomas Vandendriessche
3
|Annie Wittevrongel
1
|Marte Ødegaard
4
1
Knowledge Centre for Health Ghent, Ghent
University, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent,
Belgium
2
LSE Library, London School of Economics and
Political Science, London, UK
3
KU Leuven Libraries, 2Bergen, Learning
Centre Désiré Collen, Leuven, Belgium
4
Library of Medicine and Science, University
of Oslo Library, University of Oslo, Oslo,
Norway
Correspondence
Marte Ødegaard, Library of Medicine and
Science, University of Oslo Library, University
of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Email: marte.odegaard@ub.uio.no
Funding information
None
Abstract
Introduction: Systematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical decision‐
making, policy formulation, and evidence‐based practice. However, despite the
existence of well‐established guidelines, inadequately executed and reported
systematic reviews continue to be published. These highly cited reviews not only
pose a threat to the credibility of science but also have substantial implications for
medical decision‐making. This study aims to evaluate and recommend improvements
to the author instructions of biomedical and health journals concerning the
conducting and reporting of systematic reviews.
Methods: A sample of 168 journals was selected based on systematic reviews
published between 2020 and 2021, taking into account their Altmetric attention
score, citation impact, and mentions in Altmetric Explorer. Author instructions were
downloaded, and data extraction was carried out using a standardized web form.
Two reviewers independently extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by a
third reviewer. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics, and
recommendations for editorial teams were formulated. The protocol is registered
with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf. io/bym8d).
Results: One‐third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as
demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines,
protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist.
Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic
reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of
information specialists is seldom acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an
update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of
the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews.
Conclusion: Journals that make substantial contributions to synthesizing evidence in
biomedicine and health are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within
their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting of reliable
Cochrane Ev Synth. 2024;2:e12050. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cesm
|
1of18
https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12050
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.
systematic reviews. This not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially
compromises the quality of this frequently published research type. Furthermore,
there is a need for greater recognition of the added value of information specialists
to the systematic review and publishing processes. This article provides recommen-
dations drawn from the study's observations, aiming to help editorial teams enhance
author instructions and, consequently, potentially assisting systematic reviewers in
improving the quality of their reviews.
KEYWORDS
author guideline, author instruction, editorial recommendation, information specialist,
publishing, reporting guideline, systematic review
1|INTRODUCTION
Systematic reviews play a vital role in evidence‐based medical practice and decision‐making [1]. Given their crucial role in healthcare [1] and the
increasing number of published systematic reviews [2], ensuring their quality is of utmost importance. Nonetheless, systematic reviews with
poor‐quality search methods are still being published. Such reviews may omit critical information, potentially misguiding healthcare practitioners
and decision‐makers [3]. The low quality relates to both the execution [4–12] and reporting of the search [4, 5, 7, 8]. Besides the wasted
resources, this may have serious repercussions for individual patients and our healthcare system as a whole.
Various resources are available to assist researchers in conducting high‐quality systematic reviews. Some organizations have a collaborative
editorial system that allows authors to collaborate when publishing a review. Methodological handbooks provide guidance on conducting
research effectively [13, 14] while reporting guidelines offer instructions for writing comprehensive systematic review reports [15]. The absence
of a clear distinction between conducting and reporting guidelines might lead to their interchangeable use of one for the other purpose. There
appears to be a gap between the existence of these guidelines and people's awareness and utilization of them [16]. Journal author instructions
could potentially bridge this gap. However, previous assessments by Biocic et al., Goldberg et al., and Rehlicki et al. revealed underperformance
in the inclusion of search method requirements in author instructions [17–19].
Organizations like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) offer recommendations and educational resources for editors and others involved in medical
research and publication [20–22]. However, their recommendations are not mandatory, do not address specific systematic review requirements
such as literature search methods and protocol registration, and are often too general about broad subjects such as data sharing, as these
organizations typically do not delve extensively into this specific publication type.
In addition to the author instructions provided by journals, information specialists can play a pivotal role in bridging the knowledge gap as
they stay updated on current systematic review methods, guidelines, and tools. By engaging with an information specialist at the outset of the
review process, researchers can save time and improve efficiency, resulting in a more comprehensive and relevant set of studies included in their
review, ultimately leading to more accurate and reliable findings [23–28].
Overall, although guiding documents, organizations, and information specialists are available to support the quality of systematic reviews,
there seems to be a gap in their implementation. The objective of this study is to evaluate the level of systematic reviews guidance provided
within the author instructions of biomedicine and health journals, as well as to provide recommendations for editorial organizations and teams.
2|METHODS
A cross‐sectional study was conducted on the author instructions of biomedicine and health journals. Its project plan was registered with the
Open Science Framework (OSF) Registries (osf. io/bym8d) before data analysis and gives more information about the methods.
2.1 |Journal subset selection
The subset consists of academic journals that have recently published systematic reviews. To obtain the sample, on August 17, 2022, a search
for systematic reviews was conducted on MEDLINE (using PubMed). The search specifically targeted systematic reviews published between
2of18
|
PAUWELS ET AL.
2020 and 2021, covering a span of two full calendar years to accommodate potential publishing fluctuations throughout the year. The search
query employed was: “systematic review”[Title] AND 2020/01/01:2021/12/31[Date ‐Publication] AND “MEDLINE”[Filter]. We exported the
systematic reviews from the MEDLINE search and further assessed this set at the journal level. To identify journals with meaningful impact in
terms of publishing and outreach, we combined several methods: we selected the top journals based on the number of systematic reviews
published yearly, the highest total mentions on Altmetric Explorer (London, United Kingdom), the highest Altmetric attention score, and the
highest citation impact on InCites from Clarivate Analytics (London, United Kingdom). On July 10, 2023, the potential predatory status of the
journals was assessed using an experimental tool to verify indicators generally associated with predatory publishing [29] and additional manual
verifications.
2.2 |Data collection, extraction, and analysis
On September 23, 2022, the author instructions from the selected journals were downloaded from their respective websites and saved as PDF
documents (performed by coauthor MØ). A piloted data extraction form was developed and hosted online. All data categories included in the
form can be found in Supporting Information S1: 1. Subsequently, the collected data was transferred to Microsoft Excel (Washington, United
States) to reconcile any disparities and to facilitate further analysis. At the start of 2023, discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer (MK or
NSP). The data analysis is presented using descriptive statistics, such as frequency distribution or percentages, and recommendations for
editorial teams were formulated based on the study findings.
3|RESULTS
A total of 170 unique journals from 23 publishers were included in this study. Two journals were excluded from further analysis: one due to a
publisher change between the collection of author instructions and data extraction (European Journal of Preventive Cardiology) and the other
because the journal exclusively commissions articles (Sleep Medicine Reviews). Among the 168 journals, the majority (55 out of 168) were
published by Elsevier, followed by 35 Springer journals and 18 Wiley journals. The complete distribution of journals by publisher can be found in
Table 1. All data from the author instructions by journal are available in Supporting Information S1: Appendix 1.
3.1 |Screening for predatory journals
Based on the experimental screening tool developed by Jaques et al. [29] and subsequent manual analysis, four journals required further
evaluation. The following three journals were de‐listed from the Web of Science Core Collection by Clarivate, following an announcement in
March 2023 [30]: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (published by MDPI), BioMed Research International (published
by Hindawi), and Annals of Palliative Medicine (published by AME). The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health was also
excluded from DOAJ in May 2023 due to suspected editorial misconduct by its publisher. However, these journals were not flagged as predatory
at the time of sampling. Therefore, they are included in our analysis.
3.2 |Reference to editorial organizations in the author instructions
Given that editorial organizations provide recommendations and educational resources, we investigated how frequently they were mentioned
within the author instructions (Table 1). As shown in Table 1, ICMJE [22] was the most frequently cited organization, appearing in the majority of
the surveyed instructions with 146 mentions, followed by COPE [20] with 113 mentions. In addition, some editorial teams indicated that they
have developed their own policies for which they assessed compliance. However, among the 168 journals evaluated, nine made no reference to
any editorial committee within their author instructions.
The above‐mentioned editorial organizations provide guidance on a wide range of topics, although this was not always explicitly outlined in
the author instructions. Specifically, out of the 159 journals referring to an organization, 40 did not specify the role or commitment of any
particular organization. However, in 106 of these journals, a reference was made regarding authorship policies. Moreover, out of the 159
journals, 29 referred to these organizations for guidance on methods, 35 for data sharing, and 29 for peer review. References were also made for
guidance on conflicts of interest and research integrity, including addressing plagiarism. It is worth noting that references to these organizations
were often brief and lacked specificity. For instance, while data sharing was mentioned in a general sense, none specifically addressed it within
the context of systematic reviews.
PAUWELS ET AL.
|
3of18
TABLE 1 Overview of the journal subset used in this study: number of journals and mentions of publication ethics organizations by publisher.
Publishers' full name
Name used in this
paper
Number of
journals COPE ICMJE WAME Other organizations
Elsevier Elsevier 55 33 53 3
Springer Nature Group, includes BMC Springer 35 29 28 5 3
(ENWA)
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Wiley 18 12 12 1 3
(ESA, SRCD, Group of Editors
of Addiction Journals)
Wolters Kluwer, includes Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins
Wolters Kluwer 8 5 7 3 1
(APA)
The BMJ BMJ 6 5 5 4
Oxford University Press (OUP), includes
Oxford Academic
OUP 6 5 4 1
Taylor & Francis Group Taylor & Francis 6 3 5 3
(APA)
Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) Network
JAMA 5 5
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing
Institute (MDPI)
MDPI 5 5 5
Sage Publications SAGE 5 4 4
Public Library of Science (PLOS) PLOS 4 4
Frontiers Media SA Frontiers 3 3 3
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi 2 2 2 1
AME Publishing Company AME 1 1 1
American College of Physicians (ACP Press) ACP Press 1 1 1
Cambridge University Press Cambridge University
Press
11
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Group (CMAJ)
CMAJ 1 1 1
International Society of Global Health
(ISoGH)
ISoGH 1 1 1
JMIR Publications JMIR 1 1
National Academies Press (NAP) NAP 1 1
4of18
|
PAUWELS ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Publishers' full name
Name used in this
paper
Number of
journals COPE ICMJE WAME Other organizations
Verduci Editore Verduci 1 1 1 1 (CSE)
Via Medica Via Medica 1 1 1
Washington DC: American Society of
Hematology (ASH)
ASH 1 1
TOTAL
publishers: 23
TOTAL
journals: 168
TOTAL COPE
mentions: 113
TOTAL ICMJE
mentions: 146
TOTAL WAME
mentions: 18
TOTAL other mentions: 12
Abbreviations: APA, American Psychological Association; COPE, Committee on Publication Ethics; CSE, Council of Science Editors; ENWA, European Medical Writers Association; ICMJE, International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors; SRCD, Society for Research in Child Development; ESA, Ecological Society of America; WAME, World Association of Medical Editors.
PAUWELS ET AL.
|
5of18
3.3 |Availability of author instructions tailored for systematic reviews
Out of the 168 journal instructions analyzed, only 63 of them included a separate heading, section, or paragraph specifically dedicated to
systematic reviews, despite all these journals publishing this type of review. This indicates that 62% of the journals did not provide specific
guidance for systematic reviews. Additionally, 14 journals from nine different publishers incorporated this information into general guidance for
original research, simply stating that “systematic reviews are reported as original research.”These findings suggest a potential gap in the support
offered by journals to systematic review authors.
3.4 |Author instructions about conducting and reporting systematic reviews
Among the author instructions we analyzed, we found that only a minority (17 out of 168) explicitly mentioned that authors must adhere to a
methodological guideline—these conducting guidelines focus on the design and execution of a systematic review—and indicated that
compliance was compulsory (Table 2). In seven other journals, compliance with a methodological guideline was recommended rather than
mandated (Table 2), implying its optional nature. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was mentioned in the
majority of the author instructions (Table 2).
In 108 out of 168 instructions, at least one reporting guideline—which assists authors in presenting comprehensive details about the methodology
employed and the results obtained—was cited, with PRISMA [15] being the most frequently referenced standard (Table 3). Some journals referred to
other reporting guidelines (Table 3), but always in addition to PRISMA and/or EQUATOR. A process to validate compliance with the reporting
guideline was noted in 42 of the analyzed journals. In the majority of these cases (88%), authors were required to include the reporting checklist during
manuscript submission. In the remaining 12%, the checklist was requested as supplementary material. Out of the 168 examined journals, 32 from 10
different publishers provided comprehensive information in the author instructions themselves regarding reporting of search methods, such as the
search strategy (Table 4). All except one of these 32 journals (Trauma Violence & Abuse) also included at least one reporting standard or a reference to
the EQUATOR network in their author instructions. Figure 1represents a visualization of the mentions of conducting and reporting guidance in our
journal subset, illustrating that 34% of the journals (58 outof168)providednoguidanceatallabouttheseaspects.
In conclusion, our findings indicate that while only 14% of the analyzed journals explicitly refer to methodological guidelines for conducting
a review, a much higher proportion (64%) mention a reporting guideline. This highlights the importance of transparent and comprehensive
reporting in scholarly publishing, but conducting and reporting a high‐quality systematic review go hand in hand.
3.5 |Author instructions about specific aspects of systematic reviews, such as protocol registration, data
sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist
Out of a total of 168 journals, 41 mentioned protocol registration in relation to a systematic review (Figure 2). Among these, 21 journals
recommended the registration of a protocol, leaving the decision up to the authors. Twenty journals stipulated that the registration of a
TABLE 2 Journals mentioning conducting guidance for systematic reviews in the author instructions.
Guidance for conducting systematic reviews (reference
number) Compulsory to follow guidance Optional to follow guidance
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions [13]
7 journals
(1 AME, 3 Wiley, 3 Frontiers)
6 journals
(2 Springer, 4 Elsevier)
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence
Synthesis [14]
2 journals
(1 Wiley, 1 Wolters Kluwer)
‐
Campbell Collaboration [31] 3 journals
(Frontiers)
‐
COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health
Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) [32]
1 journal
(Wiley)
‐
Other 7 journals
(Elsevier: Lancet's formatting guidelines for
systematic reviews and meta‐analysis [33])
1 journal
(Wiley: article of Wille‐
Jørgensen et al [34])
TOTAL 20 mentions (17 journals) 7 mentions (7 journals)
6of18
|
PAUWELS ET AL.
protocol was mandatory. When protocol registration was included in the author instructions, guidance about reporting guidelines
was also present (Figure 2). Out of 168 examined journals, 15 of them provided specific recommendations for data sharing concerning
the search methods aspect (Figure 2). Interestingly, six out of 15 journals encourage authors to preserve their search strings in
SearchRxiv [48], a platform launched in December 2021 for reporting, storing, and sharing search strategies. Of the 168 journals
analyzed, only six recommended that authors include the assistance of an information specialist during the search strategy development
process (Figure 2).
TABLE 3 Reporting guidance for systematic reviews mentioned in the author instructions.
Guidance for reporting a systematic review Required to follow the guidance (compulsory)
Recommended to follow the guidance
(optional)
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Met‐Analysis (PRISMA) [15]
73 journals
(27 Elsevier, 8 Wiley, 5 JAMA, 5 MDPI, 4 Wolters
Kluwer, 3 BMJ, 3 Frontiers, 3 PLOS, 2 OUP, 2
SAGE, 2 Springer, 1 AME, 1 ACP, 1 BMC, 1
Cambridge University Press, 1 CMAJ Group, 1
ISoGH, 1 JMIR, 1 Taylor & Francis, 1 Verduci)
30 journals
(17 Springer, 4 Elsevier, 3 BMC journals,
2 Hindawi, 2 Taylor & Francis, 1 OUP,
1 Wiley)
PRISMA for protocols [35] 7 journals
(2 Springer, 1 BMJ, 1 Elsevier, 1 Taylor & Francis, 1
Wolters Kluwer, 1 PLOS)
19 journals
(16 Springer, 2 BMJ, 1 Wolters Kluwer)
PRISMA for abstracts [15] 3 journals
(2 PLOS, 1 Springer)
‐
PRISMA for searching [36]0 0
PERSiST guidance for implementing PRISMA
in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine
and SporTs science [37]
‐1 journal
(BMJ)
Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of
health Research (EQUATOR) [38, 39]
32 journals
(14 Elsevier, 5 JAMA, 3 PLOS, 2 Wolters Kluwer, 2
SAGE, 2 Wiley, 1 ACP, 1 BMJ, 1 ISoGH, 1 JMIR)
20 journals
(14 Springer Nature, 2 BMC, 2 Wolters
Kluwer, 1 Elsevier, 1 OUP)
Meta‐Analysis of Observational Studies in
Epidemiology (MOOSE) [40]
17 journals
(5 JAMA, 4 Elsevier, 2 Wolters Kluwer, 2 Wiley, 1 ACP,
1 BMJ, 1 Cambridge University Press, 1 OUP)
3 journals
(1 OUP, 1 Springer, 1 Wiley)
The Methodological Expectations of Cochrane
Intervention Reviews (MECIR) [41]
1 journal
(Wiley)
‐
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) [42] 1 journal(Elsevier)
Campbell Collaboration [31] 3 journal
(Frontiers)
‐
Quality of Reporting of Meta‐analyses of
randomized controlled trials
(QUOROM) [43]
‐1 journal
(Wiley)
Enhancing transparency in reporting the
synthesis of qualitative research
(ENTREQ) [44]
2 journals
(1 ACP, 1 SAGE)
‐
Synthesis Without Meta‐analysis in systematic
reviews (SWiM) [45]
1 journal
(Wiley)
‐
Realist And Meta‐narrative Evidence
Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES)
[46, 47]
1 journal
(SAGE)
‐
TOTAL 141 mentions of a reporting guideline as a requirement
(77 journals)
74 mentions of a reporting guideline as a
recommendation (35 journals)
PAUWELS ET AL.
|
7of18
TABLE 4 Quotes from the author instructions referring to search methods, exported in September 2022.
Journal name Publisher
Section of the author instructions referring to search
methods
Guidance for
conducting?
Guidance for
reporting?
Addiction Wiley “It is expected that reviews will be ‘systematic’, which means
they will set out very clearly the search strategy
(including keywords where appropriate),[…].”
No Yes
Annals of Internal Medicine ACP “Abstract Structure: […] Data Sources (must include start and
end search dates) […]”
“Text […] Subheadings should be: Data Sources and
Searches […]”
No Yes
Archives of Physical Medicine
& Rehabilitation
Elsevier “For review articles, systematic or narrative, readers should
be informed of the rationale and details behind the
literature search strategy.”
No Yes
Arthroscopy Elsevier “Literature Search: The search strategy (terms, string) should
be described with enough detail that it could be
reproduced. Indicate which databases were searched.
Two or more databases should be used (the combination
of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane will capture 97% of
all relevant studies in Orthopedic Surgery SR/MA). The
search should be performed independently by two or
more study authors to ensure no omission of potentially
relevant subjects and resolution of disagreement in the
setting of possible study inclusion.”
Yes Yes
BJOG: An International
Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynecology
Wiley “The Search Strategy (described in detail), and tables with the
details of the included and excluded studies should be
uploaded as online supplementary information only (not
to appear in print).”
Yes Yes
BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC
Public Health
Springer “Authors of systematic reviews should also provide a link to
an additional file from the ‘Methods’section, which
reproduces all details of the search strategy. For an
example of how a search strategy should be presented,
see the Cochrane Reviewers’Handbook.”
Yes Yes
British Journal of Psychiatry Cambridge
University
Press
“Please include a structured abstract […] including data
sources […]”
“Supplementary Material ‐[…] Details of a search strategy
employed in a literature review […]”
“Review
[…]‐It is important that the Method section clearly describes
the search strategy, study selection criteria, and synthesis
approach in sufficient detail to ensure the method can be
replicated to extract the same data with the same or
similar analysis. This should include information about the
protocol registration, review software, data sources
(bibliographic databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE,
Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and reference lists from
journals or books), MeSH and free text search terms and
filters, dates included in the search, screening process,
language limitations, inclusion and exclusion criteria,
study selection and synthesis approach. To ensure a
comprehensive review of the literature, we encourage
consideration of publications in non‐English languages.
Ideally, the search should be as current as possible with
the search date noted in the manuscript. […]
Supplementary tables, figures, and data should include (in
this order): 1. PRISMA‐P (or equivalent) Table 2. Search
strings used for various platforms such as MEDLINE,
Scopus, etc. 3. PICOS table (if relevant) […]”
No Yes
8of18
|
PAUWELS ET AL.
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Journal name Publisher
Section of the author instructions referring to search
methods
Guidance for
conducting?
Guidance for
reporting?
British Journal of Sports
Medicine
BMJ “Systematic reviews provide Level One evidence; they form a
critical part of the literature: […]–The literature search
should have been completed within 12 months of
manuscript submission.”
No Yes
Chest Elsevier “A systematic review involves several steps that can be
described in a protocol: […] using several search engines
for searches (e.g., PubMed‐MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus,
Cochrane library) […].”
Yes Yes
Clinical Microbiology and
Infection
Elsevier “Search strategy: Databases searched and search string adapted
for each database should bepresented(possiblyas
supplementary material). Study flowchart (in Results) should
start transparently from the results of the described search
strategy. Restrictions on study years, publication status, or
language should be avoided or justified.”
Yes Yes
Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews
Elsevier Full section on search methods in the Methodological
Expectations of
Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR): “1.26 Search
methods for identification of studies”
Yes Yes
Globalization and Health Springer “Authors of systematic reviews should also provide a link to
an additional file from the ‘Methods’section, which
reproduces all details of the search strategy. For an
example of how a search strategy should be presented,
see the Cochrane Reviewers’Handbook.”
No Yes
Influenza and Other
Respiratory Viruses
Wiley On reporting: “Literature search and study selection:
Guidelines encourage a comprehensive description of the
literature search such that it is reproducible.”And “Yet,
SRs of surgical interventions frequently require the
inclusion of nonrandomized evidence. One of the first
problems encountered is the literature search as standard
strategies often miss relevant studies because of
uncertainty surrounding the use of appropriate search
terms, and in turn, results in the retrieval of a large
number of irrelevant records. Methodological filters are
available to help minimize this, but have yet to be widely
implemented.”
Yes Yes
JAMA JAMA “The search methods should be described in sufficient detail
so the search can be reproduced based on the
information provided in the manuscript. A summary of
the methods of the literature search including this
information should be included in the main article; details
can be included in an online‐only supplement.”
No Yes
JAMA Internal Medicine,
JAMA Pediatrics and
JAMA Psychiatry
JAMA “Methods/literature search: The literature search should be
as current as possible, ideally with end dates within a
month or two before manuscript submission. A search of
the primary literature should be conducted, including
multiple bibliographic databases (eg, PubMed/MEDLINE,
Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO). This can be facilitated by
collaborating with a medical librarian to help with the
search. Briefly describe characteristics of the literature
searched and included in the review, following the
PRISMA reporting guidelines, including the bibliographic
databases and other sources searched, search terms used,
dates included in the search, date the literature search
was conducted, screening process, language limitations,
and inclusion and exclusion criteria.”
No Yes
(Continues)
PAUWELS ET AL.
|
9of18
3.6 |Update date mentioned in author instructions
In 27 out of 168 author instructions, a publication or an update date was mentioned. Of these 27 instructions, 15 indicated the last update in
2022, the same year as the study. Notably, 141 instructions lack a creation or update date, which leaves authors uncertain about whether the
instructions have been revised to reflect the latest developments.
3.7 |Recommendations for enhancing author instructions derived from our study findings
Table 5provides a clear outline of six crucial recommendations derived from our study findings, all of which imply mandatory implementation for
the systematic reviewer. It also includes supplementary information, which are items that can be readily integrated into the author instructions.
These recommendations encompass actionable directives tailored for editorial teams. By adhering to these directives, teams can improve the
effectiveness of their author instructions, avoid potential pitfalls, and provide supplementary contextual information.
We strongly advise the inclusion of a dedicated section for systematic reviews within the author instructions. This section should offer
comprehensive guidance and illustrative examples to better support and enhance the quality of all stages involved in executing and documenting
systematic reviews. Furthermore, it is recommended that editorial teams collaborate with an information specialist. This collaboration is
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Journal name Publisher
Section of the author instructions referring to search
methods
Guidance for
conducting?
Guidance for
reporting?
Journal of the American
Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry
Elsevier “Review articles should provide a critical assessment of the
literature and include the search and selection criteria for
data sources.”
No Yes
Lancet, Lancet Child &
Adolescent Health, Lancet
Digital Health, Lancet
Gastroenterology &
Hepatology, Lancet Global
Health, Lancet Microbe,
Lancet Psychiatry, Lancet
Respiratory Medicine
Elsevier “Methods –Search strategy and selection criteria: Describe
the data sources assessed. List databases searched and
exact date cutoffs. Provide search terms used for at least
one database such that the search could be repeated.”
Yes Yes
Laryngoscope Wiley “In brief, Systematic Reviews should include the following:
[…]–Explicit description of the electronic search strategy
and databases used (at least 3), including Mesh titles,
dates of inclusion, and the names of those performing the
search Report of the results of the search, the studies
screened, and the studies included […].”
No Yes
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Elsevier “Authors are strongly encouraged to describe within the
abstract and manuscript text the methods used to focus
their search of the literature (eg, PubMed, MEDLINE), the
search terms used, and the date limitations of the search.”
No Yes
Nutrition Reviews OUP “Methods used to review and evaluate the literature using
standardized procedures. This should include the
databases used for the review, the key search terms, the
criteria for excluding or including previous studies, and
how the studies were evaluated and by whom.”
No Yes
Palliative Medicine SAGE “All reviews should include sufficient detail on review
question, inclusion and exclusion criteria, search
strategies, data extraction and synthesis methods (as
appropriate to the review design) for the study to be
replicated. […] Data sources: State the data sources used
(including years searched).”
No Yes
Trauma Violence & Abuse SAGE “Each manuscript must: include […] criteria for inclusion, how
research studies were identified […]”
No No
10 of 18
|
PAUWELS ET AL.
intended to facilitate the creation and maintenance of comprehensive author instructions, ensuring they stay up‐to‐date with evolving best
practices.
4|DISCUSSION
By increasing the utilization of established guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews, the quality and credibility of published
reviews can be improved. Our study examines the guidance provided to authors of systematic reviews in the author instructions of biomedical
and health journals and provides recommendations for editorial teams.
Through our journal selection approach, we aimed to curate a collection of influential journals in the field of biomedicine and health. Our
study findings suggest that a substantial portion of these journals mention various editorial organizations in their author instructions, signifying
their recognition of the importance of adhering to the guidance provided by these organizations. We question whether referencing these
editorial organizations is a strategic move to improve the journal's reputation, given the often vague context for which they are cited. It should
be noted, however, that the inclusion of such references does not imply membership or certification by the mentioned organizations, and thus
those journals could still potentially be associated with predatory practices [52]. Using an experimental tool [29] and manual checks, we
evaluated the probability of predatory journals being included in our subset. We did not find evidence of predatory practices at the time of
publication for the systematic reviews in our sample. It is important to acknowledge that we cannot verify the common practices of predatory
FIGURE 1 Visualization of mentions of conducting and reporting guidance in the sampled journals.
PAUWELS ET AL.
|
11 of 18
journals from author instructions, such as aggressive article solicitation and the publication of numerous thematic issues without adequate peer
review.
In over half of the journals included in our analysis, a dedicated subsection for systematic reviews was absent from the author instructions.
Moreover, one‐third of all journals in this sample lacked any guidance related to established conducting or reporting guidelines for systematic
reviews, including specific advice on aspects like search methods, protocol registration, and data sharing. Nevertheless, there was a lack of
consistency in either recommending or requiring the use of reporting guidelines, and no standardized methods were established to verify
adherence to these guidelines. Some organizations and publishers included in this study have released their own advice on conducting
systematic reviews since as early as 2019 [53–59]. These examples might reflect both outdated instructions on one hand and the need for more
author guidance on the other. These findings suggest that the information targeted toward systematic reviewers primarily focuses on reporting,
lacks cohesion and uniformity, thus highlighting the need for consolidation. Considering these findings, we provided three recommendations
(Recommendations 1–3 of the Section 3.7) regarding the provision of a clear and distinct section for systematic reviews in author instructions,
including comprehensive guidance on conducting and reporting such reviews.
Without a dedicated section for systematic reviews, there is a risk that the provided information might be too general, making it challenging
for systematic reviewers to apply to their own work, especially in aspects like protocol registration and data sharing. A systematic review
protocol differs from a clinical study protocol, for example. Surprisingly, only one‐quarter of the examined journals in this study either
encouraged or mandated protocol registration for systematic reviews. This is reflected in our recommendation for editorial teams to
differentiate protocol registration for systematic reviews and to mention available registries like PROSPERO [60] and Open Science Framework
[61]. In clinical research and healthcare, data sharing seems to have gained recognition among relevant stakeholders [62, 63]. However, within
the context of a systematic review, “data”encompasses information related to search strategies across all sources, reasons for exclusion during
full‐text screening, risk of bias assessment of individual studies, and certainty assessment, among others. Less than 10% of the examined journals
provided specific recommendations for data sharing related to search methods in systematic reviews. The need for specification for systematic
reviews is reflected in Recommendation 4 of the Section 3.7.
The composition and involvement of team members in shaping and conducting a systematic review can significantly impact its efficiency and
outcomes [64]. Only a small fraction of the analyzed journals refers to the role of an information specialist. This specialist can take on various
roles within the review process, including serving as a project leader, project manager, literature searcher, reference manager, document
supplier, critical appraiser, data extractor, data synthesizer, report writer, disseminator, or primary researcher [51]. This lack of acknowledgment
FIGURE 2 Visualization of the frequency of guidance tailored toward systematic reviews in terms of protocol registration, data sharing, and
involvement of an information specialist in the journals' sample.
12 of 18
|
PAUWELS ET AL.
TABLE 5 Recommendations for enhancing author instructions derived from our study findings.
#
Recommendation for enhancing
author instructions Supplementary information
Action items for editorial teams, including more
context and implementation advice
1Include a distinct and dedicated section
for systematic reviews.
‐A section entitled “Systematic Reviews”outlines
the essential stages of conducting and reporting
a systematic review. These include protocol
registration, search methods, study selection,
data extraction, risk of bias assessment or
critical appraisal, certainty of evidence
assessment, evidence synthesis, reporting, and
data sharing.
‐Tailored information for a systematic review,
such as conducting and reporting guidelines,
protocol registration, data sharing, and the
involvement of an information specialist (as in
Recommendations 2–6).
‐A statement addressing publication bias by
considering reviews with negative or
inconclusive results.
‐Add more information about the stages of a
systematic review, aligning with established
international standards, to help authors gain a
thorough understanding of each stage before
conducting and submitting their systematic
reviews.
‐Avoid using a generic category like “Review”,or
a generic statement such as “a systematic
review will be considered as original research”.
‐Address publication bias by considering for
publication reviews with negative or
inconclusive results.
2Clearly differentiate between
conducting and reporting stages of
systematic reviews.
‐A statement, for example: “Conducting
guidelines focus on the design and execution of
a systematic review while reporting guidelines
assist authors in presenting comprehensive
details about the methodology employed and
the results obtained. Consequently, these two
types of guidelines serve distinct purposes and
should be treated separately. For instance, a
biased systematic review can be thoroughly
reported, while an unbiased one may be
inadequately reported.”
‐Incorporate of the differentiation between the
conducting and reporting stages.
3Provide comprehensive guidance for
conducting and reporting
systematic reviews
Conducting:
‐Guidelines that offer a step‐by‐step approach
for both beginners and advanced reviewers
throughout the entire process of conducting a
systematic review. For example, “Cochrane
[(13)] and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) [(14)],
and more guides are published by Kolaski
et al. [(49)].”
Reporting:
‐PRISMA statement for systematic reviews,
including the PRISMA checklist
‐PRISMA extension for Protocols
‐EQUATOR network as a source for specific
reporting guidelines based on a review question
(e.g.,: PRISMA‐DTA for systematic reviews and
meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy
studies [(50)]) or type of evidence being covered
(e.g.,: ENTREQ for qualitative research
reviews [(44)]).
‐A statement to include the PRISMA checklist (or
other reporting checklist, if applicable) as
supplementary material for transparency.
‐Avoid relying solely on one conducting guide
and referring to it as the exclusive option
considering variations in the policies and
support of organizations producing conducting
guidelines (some organizations have a
collaborative editorial system that allows
authors to collaborate when publishing a
review). Nonetheless, offering multiple
examples of well‐established organizations may
assist authors in identifying a guideline that
aligns with their individual and institutional
needs and goals.
‐Avoid formulating your own guidance for
conducting and reporting systematic reviews
and instead refer to established organizations
with methodological experts who consistently
update their recommendations.
‐Offer step‐by‐step guidance for both
conducting and reporting systematic reviews,
and establish a mandatory requirement for
reviewers to adhere to this guidance.
‐Use the PRISMA checklist to verify reporting
compliance.
‐Involve an information specialist in developing
the journal's author instructions and during
peer review to verify the compliance with
reporting guidelines.
4Tailor data‐sharing policies and
protocol registration examples to
systematic reviews
Data sharing:
‐Specific examples relevant to systematic
reviews (e.g., sharing search strategies, template
data collection forms, data extracted from
‐Avoid vague terms like ““data sharing”and
clearly tailor examples to systematic reviews.
(Continues)
PAUWELS ET AL.
|
13 of 18
suggests a potential unawareness of the valuable contributions information specialists can make to editorial and systematic review teams.
Therefore, we advocate for the involvement of an information specialist at three levels: as a fundamental member of the review project team, as
an editorial team member or consultant to assist in drafting and updating journal author instructions, and as a peer reviewer during the
publication process (Recommendations 1, 3 and 6 of the Section 3.7).
The absence of an update date for author instructions may indicate that the webpage is considered stable and does not require further
updates. However, we raise concerns regarding the potential omission of new and relevant information, such as data sharing of search
strategies, and the use of (semi)‐automated or artificial intelligence (AI) tools (for systematic reviews or in general, such as ChatGPT). For
example, WAME and COPE published revised recommendations on chatbots and generative AI, which would be valuable and crucial additions to
author instructions [65, 66]. The importance of regular updates to ensure coverage of the latest systematic review methods and tools is
mentioned in Recommendations 6 (and 3 indirectly) of the Section 3.7.
We noticed two instances in author instructions indicating that only the most clinically impactful systematic reviews and meta‐analyses
would be peer‐reviewed and considered for publication. However, this aspect was not part of our main analysis and thus was not quantified
separately. These instances are found in Surgery and the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. The consequence of not publishing systematic
reviews that are assumed to lack clinical impact, perhaps those with negative findings or conclusions showing gaps in knowledge requiring
further research, could lead to publication bias and an incomplete overview and understanding of the available evidence. Such publication
policies may be driven by concerns about receiving fewer citations. However, Callaham et al. found that studies with positive results were not
necessarily cited more frequently or by more prestigious journals [67]. Publication bias can lead to underestimated values and increased
uncertainty in treatment effect estimates [68–70]. Such bias, both at the clinical trial and the systematic review levels, can result in clinical
decisions being based on incomplete or biased information, potentially leading to suboptimal patient outcomes. In contrast, the journal
Systematic Reviews states its aim to publish the results of all well‐conducted systematic reviews, regardless of their outcome. This observation
aligns with Recommendation 1 of the Section 3.7.
These study findings should be considered with the following limitations in mind. First, it is important to acknowledge that online
information often consists of interconnected webpages and even published methodological articles. Consequently, extracting complete author
instructions posed a challenge for our team, just as it might for authors publishing systematic reviews. Grouping relevant information, such as by
publication type, and providing a separate section could enhance accessibility. Second, the author instructions were collected on a specific day
(in September 2022) to establish a timestamp for the analysis. However, it is important to recognize that these instructions might have been
updated or revised since then. Unfortunately, the absence of publication or update dates—if not dealt with—makes it challenging to assess this
aspect for future research. Third, our study does not aim to single out any specific publisher or journal and lacks the power to draw conclusions
at the publisher level. Instead, our goal is to raise awareness among editors and editorial teams by making recommendations to enhance author
instructions. Fourth, there is an absence of standardizations in terms of methodological guidelines for systematic reviews (compared to reporting
guidelines, for example), which results in advice that is more ambiguous and includes numerous examples from established organizations. Fifth,
TABLE 5 (Continued)
#
Recommendation for enhancing
author instructions Supplementary information
Action items for editorial teams, including more
context and implementation advice
included studies, assessments of risk of bias in
included studies, and certainty of evidence
assessments).
‐SearchRxiv [(48)], a platform for sharing search
strategies, facilitating their reuse.
Protocol registration:
‐Reference PROSPERO and Open Science
Framework specifically for systematic reviews.
‐Differentiate protocol registration for
systematic reviews.
5Highlight the benefits of involving an
information specialist in conducting
and reporting systematic reviews.
‐The benefits of involving an information
specialist in designing and executing effective
search strategies, managing references, assisting
with data management during screening, and
ensuring the comprehensive reporting of these
aspects.
‐Incorporate evidence‐based benefits of
involving information specialists [(51)],
stressing their role in quality enhancement.
6Regularly update journal author
instructions with the latest
systematic review guidelines,
methods, and tools.
‐Include the latest update date in the author
instructions.
‐Set a regular updating schedule (e.g., yearly or
when new guidelines, methods, or tools
emerge).
‐Involve an information specialist in updating
the author instructions.
14 of 18
|
PAUWELS ET AL.
including guidance in the author instructions does not guarantee its implementation, as has been demonstrated previously [16]. However,
emergencies, urgent situations, or rapid responses like those during the COVID‐19 pandemic do not justify shortcuts in conducting and
reporting systematic reviews [71, 72]. Nevertheless, we are currently observing a significant lack of guidance in author instructions, forcing
systematic reviewers to rely on alternative sources of information. Finally, our selection of journals for the study primarily focused on the
biomedical and health field due to the sampling source. Consequently, we cannot draw conclusions about other disciplines or more specific areas
within medical and health research.
5|CONCLUSION
The author instructions provided by journals that make substantial contributions to summarizing evidence in biomedicine and health generally
lack tailored and detailed information for conducting and reporting systematic reviews. Furthermore, they generally do not mention information
specialists who could offer valuable assistance. This lack of guidance not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially compromises the
quality of systematic reviews. Our recommendations aim to bridge this information gap by enhancing and enriching author instructions for
systematic reviews in biomedical and health journals.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Nele. S Pauwels, Muguet Koobasi, and Marte Ødegaard: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; project
administration; supervision; validation; visualization; writing—review & editing. Nele. S Pauwels and Marte Ødegaard: Methodology; writing—
original draft; writing—review & editing. Andra Fry, Thomas Vandendriessche, and Annie Wittevrongel: Formal analysis; methodology; data
extraction; writing—review & editing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is an initiative of the Evidence‐Based Information Group within the European Association for Health Information and Libraries. We
would like to acknowledge the students of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences of Ghent University who worked on extracting the data
from the author instructions, namely Saul De Clippeleir, Pierre‐Henri Gemmerich, Sarah Khadir, Anaïs Ongenaet, Renée Van Renterghem,
Johanna Vandekerckhove, and Emma Vincke. Additionally, we would like to thank Jolanda Elmers and colleagues (Medical Library, Lausanne
University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland) for analyzing the potential predatory status of the included journals with
their experimental predatory journal screening tool developed by Jaques C, Trombert A, Zbinden J, and Elmers J. We would also thank the
University of Oslo Library, University of Oslo, for covering the article processing charges. This research received no specific grant from any
funding agency in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sectors.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supplementary material of this article.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The survey did not involve human or animal research and was not based on sensitive information or personal data of any kind. Therefore,
approval from an ethics committee was not required.
ORCID
Nele S. Pauwels http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1862-1927
Muguet Koobasi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9576-9271
Andra Fry http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7701-8776
Thomas Vandendriessche http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9980-6941
Marte Ødegaard http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9504-2219
REFERENCES
1. Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta‐analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Prim
Care. 2013;2(1):9‐14. doi:10.4103/2249-4863.109934
PAUWELS ET AL.
|
15 of 18
2. Ioannidis JPA. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485‐514.
doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12210
3. Uttley L, Quintana DS, Montgomery P, et al. The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;156:30‐41.
doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.011
4. Faggion Jr. CM, Atieh MA, Park S. Search strategies in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry. J Clin Periodontol. 2013;40(9):
883‐888. doi:10.1111/jcpe.12132
5. Faggion Jr. CM, Huivin R, Aranda L, Pandis N, Alarcon M. The search and selection for primary studies in systematic reviews published in dental
journals indexed in MEDLINE was not fully reproducible. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;98:53‐61. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.011
6. Franco JVA, Garrote VL, Escobar Liquitay CM, Vietto V. Identification of problems in search strategies in Cochrane Reviews. Res Synth Methods.
2018;9(3):408‐416. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1302
7. Koffel JB, Rethlefsen ML. Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high‐impact pediatrics, cardiology and
surgery journals: a cross‐sectional study. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163309. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163309
8. Mullins MM, DeLuca JB, Crepaz N, Lyles CM. Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions
(2000–2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible?: Reporting quality of search methods. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(2):
116‐130. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1098
9. Opheim E, Andersen PN, Jakobsen M, Aasen B, Kvaal K. Poor quality in systematic reviews on PTSD and EMDR—an examination of search
methodology and reporting. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1558. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01558
10. Salvador‐Oliván JA, Marco‐Cuenca G, Arquero‐Avilés R. Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information
retrieval. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(2):210‐221. doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.567
11. Sampson M, McGowan J. Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1057.e1‐1057.e9. doi:10.
1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.007
12. Yoshii A, Plaut DA, McGraw KA, Anderson MJ, Wellik KE. Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews.
J Med Library Assoc: JMLA. 2009;97(1):21‐29. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.004
13. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
14. Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020.
15. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
16. Page MJ, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting IItems for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA)
Statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):263. doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8
17. Biocic M, Fidahic M, Puljak L. Reproducibility of search strategies of non‐Cochrane systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals is
suboptimal: primary methodological study. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(6):e79‐e81. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.02.014
18. Goldberg J, Boyce LM, Soudant C, Godwin K. Assessing journal author guidelines for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: findings from an
institutional sample. J Med Libr Assoc. 2022;110(1):63‐71. doi:10.5195/jmla.2022.1273
19. Rehlicki D, Plenkovic M, Delac L, Pieper D, MarušićA, Puljak L. Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review
reporting and methodology: a cross‐sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024;166:111218. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.11.008
20. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Accessed August 1, 2023. publicationethics.org
21. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Accessed August 1, 2023. wame.org
22. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Accessed August 1, 2023. icmje.org
23. Aamodt M, Huurdeman H, Strømme H. Librarian co‐authored systematic reviews are associated with lower risk of bias compared to systematic
reviews with acknowledgement of librarians or no participation by librarians. Evid Based Libr and Inf Pract. 2019;14(4):103‐127. doi:10.18438/
eblip29601
24. Li L, Tian J, Tian H, et al. Network meta‐analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. J Clin Epidemiol.
2014;67(9):1001‐1007. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.003
25. Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J. Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews.
J Med Libr Assoc: JMLA. 2016;104(4):267‐277. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004
26. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co‐authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in
general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):617‐626. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
27. Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. JAMA. 2014;312(10):999‐1000.
doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9263
28. Schellinger J, Sewell K, Bloss JE, Ebron T, Forbes C. The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine. PLoS
One. 2021;16(9):e0256833. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256833
29. Jaques C, Trombert A, Zbinden J, Elmers J. An emerging concern in the systematic review process: identifying articles published in predatory
journals. presented at: European Association for Health Information and Libraries (EAHIL) conference European Association for Health Information
and Libraries (EAHIL) conference Rotterdam. 2022. bium.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/An_emerging_concern_in_systematic_reviews_process-
eahil2022.pdf
30. Web of Science. De‐listed 82 journals, including 15 from Hindawi. March 23, 2023. Accessed August 1, 2023. predatoryreports.org/news/f/web-of-
science-de-listed-82-journal-including-15-from-hindawi
31. Campbell Collaboration. Accessed August 1, 2023. campbellcollaboration.org
32. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Bouter LM, Vet HCW, Terwee CB. The COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement
INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016;20:105‐113.
33. Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in The Lancet: formatting guidelines. Accessed August 1, 2023. thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/
authors/metaguidelines-1668613510077.pdf
34. Wille‐Jørgensen P, Renehan AG. Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in coloproctology: interpretation and potential pitfalls. Colorectal Dis.
2008;10(1):21‐32. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01421.x
16 of 18
|
PAUWELS ET AL.
35. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta‐analysis protocols (PRISMA‐P) 2015 statement. Syst
Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
36. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA‐S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic
reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):39. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
37. Ardern CL, Büttner F, Andrade R, et al. Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise
medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and
SporTs science) guidance. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(4):175‐195. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-103987
38. Equator Network. Accessed August 1, 2023. equator-network.org
39. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines: helping to achieve high standards in reporting
health research studies. Maturitas. 2009;63(1):4‐6. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.03.011
40. Stroup DF. Meta‐analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta‐analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
(MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008‐2012. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
41. Higgins JPT, Lasserson T, Chandler J, Tovey D, Churchill R. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Cochrane; 2016.
42. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. The National Academies Press; 2011:340.
43. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta‐analyses of randomised controlled trials: the
QUOROM statement. Oncol Res Treat. 2000;23(6):597‐602. doi:10.1159/000055014
44. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res
Methodol. 2012;12(1):181. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
45. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta‐analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ.
2020;368:l6890. doi:10.1136/bmj.l6890
46. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11:1‐14.
47. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: meta‐narrative reviews. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(5):
987‐1004.
48. SearchRxiv. Accessed August 1, 2023. cabidigitallibrary.org/journal/searchrxiv
49. Kolaski K, Logan LR, Ioannidis JPA. Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):96. doi:10.1186/s13643-023-
02255-9
50. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies:
the PRISMA‐DTA statement. JAMA. 2018;319(4):388‐396. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19163
51. Beverley CA, Booth A, Bath PA. The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. Health
Inf Libr J. 2003;20(2):65‐74. doi:10.1046/j.1471-1842.2003.00411.x
52. Journals stating that they follow the ICMJE Recommendations. Accessed August 1, 2023. icmje.org/journals-following-the-icmje-recommendations/
53. Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J Plan Educ Res. 2019;39(1):93‐112. doi:10.1177/0739456x17723971
54. Carrera‐Rivera A, Ochoa W, Larrinaga F, Lasa G. How‐to conduct a systematic literature review: a quick guide for computer science research.
MethodsX. 2022;9:101895. doi:10.1016/j.mex.2022.101895
55. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118‐121. doi:10.1177/
014107680309600304
56. Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta‐analysis with simulation data. Trop
Med Health. 2019;47(1):46. doi:10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
57. Caldwell PH, Bennett T. Easy guide to conducting a systematic review. J Paediatr Child Health. 2020;56(6):853‐856. doi:10.1111/jpc.14853
58. MacMillan F, McBride KA, George ES, Steiner GZ. Conducting a systematic review: a practical guide. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social
Sciences. Springer Singapore; 2019:805‐826; chap 113.
59. Zaccagnini M, Li J. How to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis: a guide for clinicians. Respir Care. 2023;68:1295‐1308. doi:10.4187/
respcare.10971
60. PROSPERO. Accessed August 1, 2023. crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/
61. Open Science Framework (OSF). Accessed August 1, 2023. osf.io
62. Drazen JM, Morrissey S, Malina D, Hamel MB, Campion EW. The importance—and the complexities—of data sharing. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(12):
1182‐1183. doi:10.1056/NEJMe1611027
63. Ross JS, Lehman R, Gross CP. The importance of clinical trial data sharing: toward more open science. Circ: Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5(2):
238‐240. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.112.965798
64. Uttley L, Montgomery P. The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):149. doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0548-x
65. Lapeña JF. The updated World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) recommendations on chatbots and generative AI in relation to scholarly
publications and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publicationof
scholarly work in medical journals. Philipp J Otolaryngol HNS. 2023;38(1):4. doi:10.32412/pjohns.v38i1.2127
66. COPE position statement on AI tools. February 13, 2023. Accessed August 1, 2023. publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author
67. Callaham M. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer‐reviewed journals.
JAMA. 2002;287(21):2847‐2850. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2847
68. Copas JB, Shi JQ. A sensitivity analysis for publication bias in systematic reviews. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001;10(4):251‐265. doi:10.1177/
096228020101000402
69. Kicinski M, Springate DA, Kontopantelis E. Publication bias in meta‐analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Stat Med.
2015;34(20):2781‐2793. doi:10.1002/sim.6525
70. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;2010:MR000006. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3
71. Schünemann HJ, Santesso N, Vist GE, et al. Using GRADE in situations of emergencies and urgencies: certainty in evidence and recommendations
matters during the COVID‐19 pandemic, now more than ever and no matter what. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;127:202‐207. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.
05.030
PAUWELS ET AL.
|
17 of 18
72. McDonald S, Turner SL, Nguyen P‐Y, Page MJ, Turner T. Are COVID‐19 systematic reviews up to date and can we tell? A cross‐sectional study. Syst
Rev. 2023;12(1):85. doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02253-x
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Pauwels NS, Koobasi M, Fry A, Vandendriessche T, Wittevrongel A, Ødegaard M. Guidance for systematic
reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams. Cochrane Ev Synth. 2024;2:e12050.
doi:10.1002/cesm.12050
18 of 18
|
PAUWELS ET AL.
Content uploaded by Marte Ødegaard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marte Ødegaard on Apr 03, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
