Title |
Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medicine, November 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12916-015-0509-y |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
David Moher |
Abstract |
Systematic reviews are popular. A recent estimate indicates that 11 new systematic reviews are published daily. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that the quality of reporting of systematic reviews is not optimal. One likely reason is that the authors' reports have received inadequate peer review. There are now many different types of systematic reviews and peer reviewing them can be enhanced by using a reporting guideline to supplement whatever template the journal editors have asked you, as a peer reviewer, to use. Additionally, keeping up with the current literature, whether as a content expert or being aware of advances in systematic review methods is likely be make for a more comprehensive and effective peer review. Providing a brief summary of what the systematic review has reported is an important first step in the peer review process (and not performed frequently enough). At its core, it provides the authors with some sense of what the peer reviewer believes was performed (Methods) and found (Results). Importantly, it also provides clarity regarding any potential problems in the methods, including statistical approaches for meta-analysis, results, and interpretation of the systematic review, for which the peer reviewer can seek explanations from the authors; these clarifications are best presented as questions to the authors. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 16 | 20% |
United States | 14 | 17% |
Mexico | 4 | 5% |
Canada | 4 | 5% |
Australia | 4 | 5% |
Japan | 2 | 2% |
Hong Kong | 1 | 1% |
Brazil | 1 | 1% |
Portugal | 1 | 1% |
Other | 4 | 5% |
Unknown | 30 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 42 | 52% |
Scientists | 24 | 30% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 15% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
Australia | 2 | 2% |
Chile | 1 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Sweden | 1 | <1% |
Finland | 1 | <1% |
Argentina | 1 | <1% |
Belgium | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Other | 2 | 2% |
Unknown | 95 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 21 | 19% |
Other | 14 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
Professor | 6 | 6% |
Other | 27 | 25% |
Unknown | 18 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 31% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
Psychology | 7 | 6% |
Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
Other | 22 | 20% |
Unknown | 27 | 25% |