scholarly journals Systematic reviews of antihypertensive drugs: A review of publication trends, characteristics, and quality

Author(s):  
Hariprasad Esam ◽  
Raju Kanukula ◽  
Rupasvi Dhurjati ◽  
Rupa Aerram ◽  
Sindhujareddy Chevireddy ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
pp. jrheum.200593
Author(s):  
Michael S. Putman ◽  
Alexander Chaitoff ◽  
Joshua D. Niforatos

The growth of systematic reviews and metaanalyses (SRMA) has outpaced the growth of randomized clinical trials (RCT) in many medicine subspecialties1. This may reflect technological advances in SRMA production, fewer barriers to publish, or academic pressure to produce citations2.


Author(s):  
Jocelyn Boice

Researchers in conservation biology and other non-medical fields are adopting systematic review as a research methodology. Since this methodology requires extensive and well-documented literature searching, it is beneficial for information professionals to understand disciplinary developments in its use. This article investigates trends in systematic review publication in conservation biology journals between 1998 and 2017 and examines the prevalence of search reporting among these systematic reviews. Results show an increase in published systematic reviews over the study period, and the majority of these include a description of the literature search. However, evidence of variable search quality and reporting indicates an important role for librarians in improving literature search strategies and documentation.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shunsuke Taito ◽  
Yuki Kataoka ◽  
Takashi Ariie ◽  
Shiho Oide ◽  
Yasushi Tsujimoto

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of studies listed in The National Library of Medicine registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and preprints in medRxiv for COVID-19 has grown rapidly. In this study, we clarified the publication trends of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) regarding COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study by investigating the number of SRs and RCTs on topics related to COVID-19 practice published in PubMed and medRxiv between January 1 and June 30, 2020. We calculated the ratio of the number of RCTs to that of SRs for this study period, as in a previous study. Results: The SR/RCT ratio in PubMed increased from 9.0 in March to 102 in June. In medRxiv, the SR/RCT ratio rose from 7.7 in March to 16.5 in June Discussion: The SR/RCT ratio increased and was much higher than that of 0.871 in 2017 found in a previous review of all medical research. During the study period, the trend in the COVID-19 publications comprised a more rapid increase in the number of SRs than RCTs


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 517-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Alabousi ◽  
A. Alabousi ◽  
T. A. McGrath ◽  
K. D. Cobey ◽  
B. Budhram ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 56-58
Author(s):  
Shunsuke Taito ◽  
Yuki Kataoka ◽  
Takashi Ariie ◽  
Shiho Oide ◽  
Yasushi Tsujimoto

ASHA Leader ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 60-60

Nominate Clinical Questions for Systematic Reviews


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document