Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.

ABSTRACT: To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals' recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals' Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).

SUBMITTER: Malicki M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8492806 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.

Malički Mario M Jerončić Ana A Aalbersberg IJsbrand Jan IJ Bouter Lex L Ter Riet Gerben G

Nature communications 20211005 1

To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals' recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals' Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterog ...[more]

PMID: 34611157

Similar Datasets

Project description:To determine the association of socioeconomic disadvantage with the prevalence of childhood disabling chronic conditions in high-income countries.Systematic review and meta-analyses.6 electronic databases, relevant websites, reference lists and experts in the field.160 observational studies conducted in high-income countries with data on socioeconomic status and disabling chronic conditions in childhood, published between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 2013.Abstracts were reviewed, full papers obtained, and papers identified for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Inclusion decisions were checked by a third reviewer. Where reported, ORs were extracted for low versus high socioeconomic status. For studies reporting raw data but not ORs, ORs were calculated. Narrative analysis was undertaken for studies without data suitable for meta-analysis.126 studies had data suitable for meta-analysis. ORs for risk estimates were: all-cause disabling chronic conditions 1.72 (95% CI 1.48 to 2.01); psychological disorders 1.88 (95% CI 1.68 to 2.10); intellectual disability 2.41 (95% CI 2.03 to 2.86); activity-limiting asthma 2.20 (95% CI 1.87 to 2.85); cerebral palsy 1.42 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.61); congenital abnormalities 1.41 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.61); epilepsy 1.38 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.59); sensory impairment 1.70 (95% CI 1.39 to 2.07). Heterogeneity was high across most estimates (I(2)>75%). Of the 34 studies without data suitable for meta-analysis, 26 reported results consistent with increased risk associated with low socioeconomic status.The findings indicate that, in high-income countries, childhood disabling chronic conditions are associated with social disadvantage. Although evidence of an association is consistent across different countries, the review provides limited evidence to explain the association; future research, using longitudinal data, will be required to distinguish low socioeconomic status as the cause or consequence of childhood disabling chronic conditions and the aetiological pathways and mechanisms.

Project description:ObjectiveOverview on risks of acupuncture-related adverse events (AEs).DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses of prospective studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus and Embase from inception date to 15 September 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesProspective studies assessing AEs caused by needle acupuncture in humans as primary outcome published in English or German.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent researchers selected articles, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Overall risks and risks for different AE categories were obtained from random effects meta-analyses.Main outcomesOverall risk of minor AEs and serious adverse events (SAEs) per patients and per treatments.ResultsA total of 7679 publications were identified. Twenty-two articles reporting on 21 studies were included. Meta-analyses suggest at least one AE occurring in 9.31% (95% CI 5.10% to 14.62%, 11 studies) of patients undergoing an acupuncture series and in 7.57% (95% CI 1.43% to 17.95%, 5 studies) of treatments. Summary risk estimates for SAEs were 1.01 (95% CI 0.23 to 2.33, 11 studies) per 10 000 patients and 7.98 (95% CI 1.39 to 20.00, 14 studies) per one million treatments, for AEs requiring treatment 1.14 (95% CI 0.00 to 7.37, 8 studies) per 1000 patients. Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 >80%). On average, 9.4 AEs occurred in 100 treatments. Half of the AEs were bleeding, pain or flare at the needle site that are argued to represent intended acupuncture reaction. AE definitions and assessments varied largely.ConclusionAcupuncture can be considered among the safer treatments in medicine. SAEs are rare, and the most common minor AEs are very mild. AEs requiring medical management are uncommon but necessitate medical competence to assure patient safety. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity call for standardised AE assessments tools, clear criteria for differentiating acupuncture-related AEs from therapeutically desired reactions, and identification of patient-related risk factors for AEs.Prospero registration numberCRD42020151930.

Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.

Publications

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets