Article type
Abstract
Background: In 2023, Puljack and Lund published a commentary on redundancy in systematic reviews, through describing the problem of zombie reviews (ie, protocols or registrations that are abandoned with no subsequent review completed) and proposing a series of prevention measures to reduce research waste.
Objectives: To map how the Journal JBI Evidence Synthesis currently addresses these measures as well as providing further considerations for authors, readers, and the evidence synthesis community as a whole
Methods: All senior editors of a journal that publishes a large volume of evidence syntheses were asked to discuss and reflect on how the journal addresses each prevention measure and what further actions are needed. A commentary was subsequently developed.
Results: Eleven preventive measures were recommended by Puljak and Lund, with the journal already undertaking a range of actions and activities to address them. While most measures have been considered by the journal, others such as developing methods for evidence-based research monitoring are emerging and require consideration and collaboration from the evidence synthesis community as a whole. A series of actions items were subsequently developed.
Conclusions: Redundant reviews are wasteful to the evidence synthesis ecosystem. While there will always be a need for repetition in systematic reviews to help validate or dispute the evidence base on a particular topic, there is also a need to ensure the conduct of unnecessary systematic reviews is not being pursued.
Leading organizations in evidence synthesis have an obligation to ensure useful and valuable synthesis is being undertaken which has a direct impact on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly goal 3 with patients benefiting from receiving care based on the best available evidence. While we agree with many of the prevention measures proposed, we also highlight areas that may need further work and invite journals and organizations involved in undertaking and publishing systematic reviews to consider the issues we have raised.
1.Puljak L, Lund H. Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2023;12(1):63.
Objectives: To map how the Journal JBI Evidence Synthesis currently addresses these measures as well as providing further considerations for authors, readers, and the evidence synthesis community as a whole
Methods: All senior editors of a journal that publishes a large volume of evidence syntheses were asked to discuss and reflect on how the journal addresses each prevention measure and what further actions are needed. A commentary was subsequently developed.
Results: Eleven preventive measures were recommended by Puljak and Lund, with the journal already undertaking a range of actions and activities to address them. While most measures have been considered by the journal, others such as developing methods for evidence-based research monitoring are emerging and require consideration and collaboration from the evidence synthesis community as a whole. A series of actions items were subsequently developed.
Conclusions: Redundant reviews are wasteful to the evidence synthesis ecosystem. While there will always be a need for repetition in systematic reviews to help validate or dispute the evidence base on a particular topic, there is also a need to ensure the conduct of unnecessary systematic reviews is not being pursued.
Leading organizations in evidence synthesis have an obligation to ensure useful and valuable synthesis is being undertaken which has a direct impact on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly goal 3 with patients benefiting from receiving care based on the best available evidence. While we agree with many of the prevention measures proposed, we also highlight areas that may need further work and invite journals and organizations involved in undertaking and publishing systematic reviews to consider the issues we have raised.
1.Puljak L, Lund H. Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2023;12(1):63.