Search

Objectives The aim of this study was to describe the relationship among abstract structure, readability, and completeness, and how these features may influence social media activity and bibliometric results, considering systematic reviews (SRs) about interventions in psoriasis classified by methodological quality. Study Design and Setting Systematic literature searches about psoriasis interventions were undertaken on relevant databases. For each review, methodological quality was evaluated using the assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews tool. Abstract extension, structure, readability, and quality and completeness of reporting were analyzed. Social media activity, which consider Twitter and Facebook mention counts, as well as Mendeley readers and Google scholar citations were obtained for each article. Analyses were conducted to describe any potential influence of abstract characteristics on review's social media diffusion. Results We classified 139 intervention SRs as displaying high/moderate/low methodological quality. We observed that abstract readability of SRs has been maintained high for last 20 years, although there are some differences based on their methodological quality. Free format abstracts were most sensitive to the increase of text readability as compared with more structured abstracts (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion or eight headings), yielding opposite effects on their quality and completeness depending on the methodological quality: a worsening in low quality reviews and an improvement in those of high quality. Both readability indices and preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta-analyses for Abstract total scores showed an inverse relationship with social media activity and bibliometric results in high methodological quality reviews but not in those of lower quality. Conclusion Our results suggest that increasing abstract readability must be specially considered when writing free format summaries of high-quality reviews because this fact correlates with an improvement of their completeness and quality, and this may help to achieve broader social media visibility and article usage.

Background Epidemiology and the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are well known. However, no study has analyzed the influence of protocol features on the probability that a study’s results will be finally reported, thereby indirectly assessing the reporting bias of International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration records. Objective The objective of this study is to explore which factors are associated with a higher probability that results derived from a non-Cochrane PROSPERO registration record for a systematic review will be finally reported as an original article in a scientific journal. Methods/design The PROSPERO repository will be web scraped to automatically and iteratively obtain all completed non-Cochrane registration records stored from February 2011 to December 2017. Downloaded records will be screened, and those with less than 90% fulfilled or are duplicated (i.e., those sharing titles and reviewers) will be excluded. Manual and human-supervised automatic methods will be used for data extraction, depending on the data source (fields of PROSPERO registration records, bibliometric databases, etc.). Records will be classified into published, discontinued, and abandoned review subgroups. All articles derived from published reviews will be obtained through multiple parallel searches using the full protocol “title” and/or “list reviewers” in MEDLINE/PubMed databases and Google Scholar. Reviewer, author, article, and journal metadata will be obtained using different sources. R and Python programming and analysis languages will be used to describe the datasets; perform text mining, machine learning, and deep learning analyses; and visualize the data. We will report the study according to the recommendations for meta-epidemiological studies adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for SRs and MAs. Discussion This meta-epidemiological study will explore, for the first time, characteristics of PROSPERO records that may be associated with the publication of a completed systematic review. The evidence may help to improve review workflow performance in terms of research topic selection, decision-making regarding team selection, planning relationships with funding sources, implementing literature search strategies, and efficient data extraction and analysis. We expect to make our results, datasets, and R and Python code scripts publicly available during the third quarter of 2018.

Background Article summaries’ information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians’ decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explored a method for determining the methodological quality and bias risk of full-text reviews using abstract information alone. Methods Systematic literature searches for SRs and/or MA about psoriasis were undertaken on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. For each review, quality, abstract-reporting completeness, full-text methodological quality, and bias risk were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A), Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and ROBIS tools, respectively. Article-, author-, and journal-derived metadata were systematically extracted from eligible studies using a piloted template, and explanatory variables concerning abstract-reporting quality were assessed using univariate and multivariate-regression models. Two classification models concerning SRs’ methodological quality and bias risk were developed based on per-item and total PRISMA-A scores and decision-tree algorithms. This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 (JR). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company. Results This study analysed 139 SRs on psoriasis interventions. On average, they featured 56.7% of PRISMA-A items. The mean total PRISMA-A score was significantly higher for high-methodological-quality SRs than for moderate- and low-methodological-quality reviews. SRs with low-bias risk showed higher total PRISMA-A values than reviews with high-bias risk. In the final model, only ’authors per review > 6’ (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), ’academic source of funding’ (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and ’PRISMA-endorsed journal’ (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score

Objectives No gold standard exists to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs). Although Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is widely accepted for analyzing quality, the ROBIS instrument has recently been developed. This study aimed to compare the capacity of both instruments to capture the quality of SRs concerning psoriasis interventions. Study Design and Setting Systematic literature searches were undertaken on relevant databases. For each review, methodological quality and bias risk were evaluated using the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools. Descriptive and principal component analyses were conducted to describe similarities and discrepancies between both assessment tools. Results We classified 139 intervention SRs as displaying high/moderate/low methodological quality and as high/low risk of bias. A high risk of bias was detected for most SRs classified as displaying high or moderate methodological quality by AMSTAR. When comparing ROBIS result profiles, responses to domain 4 signaling questions showed the greatest differences between bias risk assessments, whereas domain 2 items showed the least. Conclusion When considering SRs published about psoriasis, methodological quality remains suboptimal, and the risk of bias is elevated, even for SRs exhibiting high methodological quality. Furthermore, the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools may be considered as complementary when conducting quality assessment of SRs.

Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is associated with significant comorbidity, an impaired quality of life, and increased medical costs, including those associated with treatments. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized clinical trials are considered two of the best approaches to the summarization of high-quality evidence. However, methodological bias can reduce the validity of conclusions from these types of studies and subsequently impair the quality of decision making. As co-authorship is among the most well-documented forms of research collaboration, the present study aimed to explore whether authors' collaboration methods might influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs of psoriasis. Methodological quality was assessed by two raters who extracted information from full articles. After calculating total and per-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores, reviews were classified as low (0-4), medium (5-8), or high (9-11) quality. Article metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. A total of 741 authors from 520 different institutions and 32 countries published 220 reviews that were classified as high (17.2%), moderate (55%), or low (27.7%) methodological quality. The high methodological quality subnetwork was larger but had a lower connection density than the low and moderate methodological quality subnetworks; specifically, the former contained relatively fewer nodes (authors and reviews), reviews by authors, and collaborators per author. Furthermore, the high methodological quality subnetwork was highly compartmentalized, with several modules representing few poorly interconnected communities. In conclusion, structural differences in author-paper affiliation network may influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs on psoriasis. As the author-paper affiliation network structure affects study quality in this research field, authors who maintain an appropriate balance between scientific quality and productivity are more likely to develop higher quality reviews.