Lack of originality in non-Cochrane systematic reviews

Tags: Poster
Fusco N1, Saldanha I1, Gresham G2, Li T1
1Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group/US Cochrane Center/Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA, 2CCochrane Eyes and Vision Group/US Cochrane Center/Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA

Background:

Lack of originality in biomedical literature is most problematic when there is substantial unattributed identical text. The standardized format of systematic reviews (SRs) may put them at higher risk for this.

Objective:

To evaluate lack of originality in non-Cochrane SRs and determine the frequency of text identical to Cochrane SRs

Methods:

We searched PubMed on 18 March 2014 (Search Strategy) to identify the 50 most recent non-Cochrane SRs of intervention effectiveness. We used TurnItIn©, a web-based originality detection software, to find text within each section (e.g. Methods, Results) identical to a source identified by the software. We defined identical text as ≥ 20 continuous words from another source under any of the following scenarios: 1) reference but no quotation marks; 2) quotation marks but no reference; or 3) neither quotation marks nor reference. Using Google Forms©, an investigator extracted the following data for each section: number of instances of identical text and, for each instance, the scenario, and whether the source was a Cochrane SR. We calculated the proportion of SRs with at least one instance of identical text and the median number of instances by section. We performed sensitivity analyses using 15 and 10 word cutoffs.

Results:

44 SRs (88%) included at least one instance of identical text (median = 3 [interquartile range (IQR) 2-6.5] instances per SR). Three SRs (6%) included at least one instance of identical text from a Cochrane SR (median = 2 [IQR 1-18] instances per SR; Table). Two of those three had text identical to an earlier Cochrane SR on a similar topic. Most identical text was in the Methods section (75/228 instances, 32.9%). Most identical text did not have either references or quotation marks (66.7%).

Conclusions:

The high proportion of non-Cochrane SRs with non-original text is a concern. The fact that the wording may have originated from a similar Cochrane SR is worth further investigation. The SR community, including Cochrane, should discuss acceptable lack of originality in Methods and Results. Future research should evaluate if Cochrane SRs themselves include non-original text.