Jay S Pepose1, Gary N Foulks2, J Daniel Nelson3, Susan Erickson4, Michael A Lemp5. 1. Pepose Vision Institute and Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Electronic address: jpepose@peposevision.com. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. 3. Health Partners Institute, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA. 4. Medical Editor/Writer, Brookline, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study sought to identify factors contributing to the inadequacies of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) published in the ophthalmology literature. DESIGN: Perspective. METHODS: Review and synthesis of selective literature, with interpretation and perspective. RESULTS: Although recommendations for the design, conduct, assessment of quality, and risk of bias of systematic reviews have been widely available, some recent publications illustrate a serious potential failing in this domain: inclusion of refuted science, lack of citation of post-publication correspondence and failure to use ≥1 alternative search strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Examples of inadequacies of peer review in medical literature and perpetuation of erroneous science by unfiltered inclusion in subsequent systematic reviews have been identified, and the problem can be traced to authors, peer reviewers, and editors of journals. This perspective identifies and analyzes several possible causes of the problem and recommends some specific corrective actions to improve the quality and accuracy of such reviews.
PURPOSE: This study sought to identify factors contributing to the inadequacies of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) published in the ophthalmology literature. DESIGN: Perspective. METHODS: Review and synthesis of selective literature, with interpretation and perspective. RESULTS: Although recommendations for the design, conduct, assessment of quality, and risk of bias of systematic reviews have been widely available, some recent publications illustrate a serious potential failing in this domain: inclusion of refuted science, lack of citation of post-publication correspondence and failure to use ≥1 alternative search strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Examples of inadequacies of peer review in medical literature and perpetuation of erroneous science by unfiltered inclusion in subsequent systematic reviews have been identified, and the problem can be traced to authors, peer reviewers, and editors of journals. This perspective identifies and analyzes several possible causes of the problem and recommends some specific corrective actions to improve the quality and accuracy of such reviews.
Authors: Jimmy T Lê; Riaz Qureshi; Benjamin Rouse; Claire Twose; Lori Rosman; Kristina Lindsley; Barbara S Hawkins; Tianjing Li Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 3.775