Article type
Year
Abstract
Introduction:
Objectives:
Methods:
Results:
Discussion: The referee process of systematic reviews is usually a task of researchers with expertise of the Cochrane methodology and/or of the specific topic of the review. The editorial base sends the referee a package including a paper copy of the review and a checklist to guide the referee process. We report here an experience we had with one of our peer review process. One of the appointed referees reported to have traced all studies and carefully assessed them in the referee process. He found some discrepancies in the following steps of the review:
1. incorrect citation of references;
2. incorrect or unclear description of studies, for example way of prescribing the drug under study;
3. incomplete assessment of methodological quality of included studies;
4. incomplete reporting of side effects;
5. errors in data extraction.
In the reported case the assessment of the single papers included in the review pointed out some relevant problems which could not have been identified without having access to the articles themselves. Important to note is that the review evaluated was based on only six trials. However, the drawback of this process was that the referee needed more time to gather and evaluate the trials, which caused some delay. The benefit of assessing the single trials could be a more rigorous referee process and consequently a better and more highly valid product. The major disadvantage would be related to a more time consuming process, for the reviewer to provide the original articles, for the editorial base to send all the papers to the referee, and for the referee to evaluate the articles. The latter one is probably the most relevant one. One option to consider might be to ask the reviewer to highlight the relevant sections and tables on each study in order to allow a quick screening by the referee. A cost benefit analysis should be carried out to evaluate whether the editorial base should provide the referee with all the studies considered in the review.
Objectives:
Methods:
Results:
Discussion: The referee process of systematic reviews is usually a task of researchers with expertise of the Cochrane methodology and/or of the specific topic of the review. The editorial base sends the referee a package including a paper copy of the review and a checklist to guide the referee process. We report here an experience we had with one of our peer review process. One of the appointed referees reported to have traced all studies and carefully assessed them in the referee process. He found some discrepancies in the following steps of the review:
1. incorrect citation of references;
2. incorrect or unclear description of studies, for example way of prescribing the drug under study;
3. incomplete assessment of methodological quality of included studies;
4. incomplete reporting of side effects;
5. errors in data extraction.
In the reported case the assessment of the single papers included in the review pointed out some relevant problems which could not have been identified without having access to the articles themselves. Important to note is that the review evaluated was based on only six trials. However, the drawback of this process was that the referee needed more time to gather and evaluate the trials, which caused some delay. The benefit of assessing the single trials could be a more rigorous referee process and consequently a better and more highly valid product. The major disadvantage would be related to a more time consuming process, for the reviewer to provide the original articles, for the editorial base to send all the papers to the referee, and for the referee to evaluate the articles. The latter one is probably the most relevant one. One option to consider might be to ask the reviewer to highlight the relevant sections and tables on each study in order to allow a quick screening by the referee. A cost benefit analysis should be carried out to evaluate whether the editorial base should provide the referee with all the studies considered in the review.