Abstract

Background: Unlike a narrative review, a systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly and critical appraisal of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses a statistical strategy for assembling the results of several studies into a single estimate. However, when an author submits a systematic review and meta-analysis to journals, the manuscript category between a review and original article is indistinct. Objectives: To investigate the manuscript category of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in biomedical journals. Methods: Biomedical journals (impact factor >6) that consider systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of clinical sciences for publication were included. The Instructions to Authors of biomedical journals and the article category printed on the front page of the literature were reviewed for evidence of an editorial policy on the manuscript category. Results: 63 of 311 biomedical journals publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical issues. In the Instructions to Authors, 4.76% classified a systematic review and meta-analysis as an original article, 15.9% as a review, 20.6% as an independent type of manuscript, and 58.7% did not mention any policy on the article type for systematic review and meta-analysis. For the article category posted at the front page of the literature, 31.7% printed systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an original article, 9.52% as a review, 4.76% as a meta-analysis, and 39.7% did not reveal the article type on the front page. Conclusions: Most of the high-impact clinical biomedical journals did not mention their policy on classification of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the Instructions to Authors. However, a relatively large proportion of journals recognize a systematic review and meta-analysis as an original article.
Original languageEnglish
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Manuscripts
Meta-Analysis
Editorial Policies
Journal Impact Factor
Publications

Cite this

@article{43fb1dbf32514f95930e3982e96af18f,
title = "Review or original article? The manuscript category of systematic review and meta-analysis in high-impact biomedical journals",
abstract = "Background: Unlike a narrative review, a systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly and critical appraisal of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses a statistical strategy for assembling the results of several studies into a single estimate. However, when an author submits a systematic review and meta-analysis to journals, the manuscript category between a review and original article is indistinct. Objectives: To investigate the manuscript category of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in biomedical journals. Methods: Biomedical journals (impact factor >6) that consider systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of clinical sciences for publication were included. The Instructions to Authors of biomedical journals and the article category printed on the front page of the literature were reviewed for evidence of an editorial policy on the manuscript category. Results: 63 of 311 biomedical journals publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical issues. In the Instructions to Authors, 4.76{\%} classified a systematic review and meta-analysis as an original article, 15.9{\%} as a review, 20.6{\%} as an independent type of manuscript, and 58.7{\%} did not mention any policy on the article type for systematic review and meta-analysis. For the article category posted at the front page of the literature, 31.7{\%} printed systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an original article, 9.52{\%} as a review, 4.76{\%} as a meta-analysis, and 39.7{\%} did not reveal the article type on the front page. Conclusions: Most of the high-impact clinical biomedical journals did not mention their policy on classification of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the Instructions to Authors. However, a relatively large proportion of journals recognize a systematic review and meta-analysis as an original article.",
author = "Ka-Wai Tam and L Tsai and Kuo, {Ken N.} and Chieh-Feng Chen and Lo, {H. L.}",
year = "2011",
language = "English",
journal = "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews",
issn = "1361-6137",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Review or original article? The manuscript category of systematic review and meta-analysis in high-impact biomedical journals

AU - Tam, Ka-Wai

AU - Tsai, L

AU - Kuo, Ken N.

AU - Chen, Chieh-Feng

AU - Lo, H. L.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Background: Unlike a narrative review, a systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly and critical appraisal of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses a statistical strategy for assembling the results of several studies into a single estimate. However, when an author submits a systematic review and meta-analysis to journals, the manuscript category between a review and original article is indistinct. Objectives: To investigate the manuscript category of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in biomedical journals. Methods: Biomedical journals (impact factor >6) that consider systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of clinical sciences for publication were included. The Instructions to Authors of biomedical journals and the article category printed on the front page of the literature were reviewed for evidence of an editorial policy on the manuscript category. Results: 63 of 311 biomedical journals publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical issues. In the Instructions to Authors, 4.76% classified a systematic review and meta-analysis as an original article, 15.9% as a review, 20.6% as an independent type of manuscript, and 58.7% did not mention any policy on the article type for systematic review and meta-analysis. For the article category posted at the front page of the literature, 31.7% printed systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an original article, 9.52% as a review, 4.76% as a meta-analysis, and 39.7% did not reveal the article type on the front page. Conclusions: Most of the high-impact clinical biomedical journals did not mention their policy on classification of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the Instructions to Authors. However, a relatively large proportion of journals recognize a systematic review and meta-analysis as an original article.

AB - Background: Unlike a narrative review, a systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly and critical appraisal of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses a statistical strategy for assembling the results of several studies into a single estimate. However, when an author submits a systematic review and meta-analysis to journals, the manuscript category between a review and original article is indistinct. Objectives: To investigate the manuscript category of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in biomedical journals. Methods: Biomedical journals (impact factor >6) that consider systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of clinical sciences for publication were included. The Instructions to Authors of biomedical journals and the article category printed on the front page of the literature were reviewed for evidence of an editorial policy on the manuscript category. Results: 63 of 311 biomedical journals publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical issues. In the Instructions to Authors, 4.76% classified a systematic review and meta-analysis as an original article, 15.9% as a review, 20.6% as an independent type of manuscript, and 58.7% did not mention any policy on the article type for systematic review and meta-analysis. For the article category posted at the front page of the literature, 31.7% printed systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an original article, 9.52% as a review, 4.76% as a meta-analysis, and 39.7% did not reveal the article type on the front page. Conclusions: Most of the high-impact clinical biomedical journals did not mention their policy on classification of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the Instructions to Authors. However, a relatively large proportion of journals recognize a systematic review and meta-analysis as an original article.

UR - http://abstracts.cochrane.org/2011-madrid/review-or-original-article-manuscript-category-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-high

M3 - Article

JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

SN - 1361-6137

ER -