Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Nov 1;179(11):1593-1594.
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3013.

Assessment of Publication Trends of Systematic Reviews and Randomized Clinical Trials, 1995 to 2017

Joshua D Niforatos  1 , Matt Weaver  2 , Michael E Johansen  3
Affiliations

Assessment of Publication Trends of Systematic Reviews and Randomized Clinical Trials, 1995 to 2017

Joshua D Niforatos et al. JAMA Intern Med. .

Abstract

This cross-sectional study assesses the growth in the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses vs randomized clinical trials from 1995 to 2017.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Published Systematic Reviews vs Randomized Clinical Trials, 1995-2017
The graphs show the total count of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) per year (A) and the ratio of SRMAs to RCTs per year from 1995 to 2017 (B). A ratio greater than 1 means more SRMAs than RCTs were published, whereas a ratio less than 1 means more RCTs than SRMAs were published.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Trends for Publications in Selected Medical and Surgical Specialties, 1995-2017
The graph shows the ratio of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) per specialty over time. A ratio of greater than 1 means that more SRMAs than RCTs were published, and a ratio less than 1 means that more RCTs than SRMAs were published. Searches for each specialty used the National Library of Medicine’s medical subject headings for each specialty; for example, obstetrics and gynecology was searched the following phraseology (“Female Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications”[Majr] OR (“Obstetrics”[Majr] OR “Gynecology”[Majr]) OR (“Obstetric Surgical Procedures”[Majr] OR “Gynecologic Surgical Procedures”[Majr]) OR “Genitalia, Female”[Majr]).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2999

References

    1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siontis KC, Ioannidis JPA. Replication, duplication, and waste in a quarter million systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018;11(12):e005212. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005212 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. . Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. . 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 - DOI - PubMed