TY  - JOUR
AU  - Nørgaard, Birgitte
AU  - Briel, Matthias
AU  - Chrysostomou, Stavri
AU  - Ristić-Medić, Danijela
AU  - Buttigieg, Sandra C.
AU  - Kiisk, Ele
AU  - Puljak, Livia
AU  - Bała, Małgorzata Maria
AU  - Peričić, Tina Poklepović
AU  - Les̈niak, Wiktoria M.
AU  - Zaja̧c, Joanna F.
AU  - Lund, Hans
AU  - Pieper, Dawid
PY  - 2022
UR  - http://rimi.imi.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1250
AB  - Objectives: This systematic review aimed to identify the characteristics and application of citation analyses in evaluating the justification, design, and placement of the research results of clinical health studies in the context of earlier similar studies. Study Design and Setting: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies. We included meta-research studies assessing whether researchers used earlier similar studies and/or systematic reviews of such studies to inform the justification or design of a new study, whether researchers used systematic reviews to inform the interpretation of new results, and meta-research studies assessing whether redundant studies were published within a specific area. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. Results: A total of 27 studies were included. How authors of citation analyses define their outcomes appears rather arbitrary, as does how the reference of a landmark review or adherence to reporting guidelines was expected to contribute to the initiation, justification, design, or contextualization of relevant clinical trials. Conclusion: Continued and improved efforts to promote evidence-based research are needed, including clearly defined and justified outcomes in meta-research studies to monitor the implementation of an evidence-based approach.
T2  - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
T2  - Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
T1  - A systematic review of meta-research studies finds substantial methodological heterogeneity in citation analyses to monitor evidence-based research
EP  - 141
SP  - 126
VL  - 150
DO  - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.021
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Nørgaard, Birgitte and Briel, Matthias and Chrysostomou, Stavri and Ristić-Medić, Danijela and Buttigieg, Sandra C. and Kiisk, Ele and Puljak, Livia and Bała, Małgorzata Maria and Peričić, Tina Poklepović and Les̈niak, Wiktoria M. and Zaja̧c, Joanna F. and Lund, Hans and Pieper, Dawid",
year = "2022",
abstract = "Objectives: This systematic review aimed to identify the characteristics and application of citation analyses in evaluating the justification, design, and placement of the research results of clinical health studies in the context of earlier similar studies. Study Design and Setting: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies. We included meta-research studies assessing whether researchers used earlier similar studies and/or systematic reviews of such studies to inform the justification or design of a new study, whether researchers used systematic reviews to inform the interpretation of new results, and meta-research studies assessing whether redundant studies were published within a specific area. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. Results: A total of 27 studies were included. How authors of citation analyses define their outcomes appears rather arbitrary, as does how the reference of a landmark review or adherence to reporting guidelines was expected to contribute to the initiation, justification, design, or contextualization of relevant clinical trials. Conclusion: Continued and improved efforts to promote evidence-based research are needed, including clearly defined and justified outcomes in meta-research studies to monitor the implementation of an evidence-based approach.",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology",
title = "A systematic review of meta-research studies finds substantial methodological heterogeneity in citation analyses to monitor evidence-based research",
pages = "141-126",
volume = "150",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.021"
}

Nørgaard, B., Briel, M., Chrysostomou, S., Ristić-Medić, D., Buttigieg, S. C., Kiisk, E., Puljak, L., Bała, M. M., Peričić, T. P., Les̈niak, W. M., Zaja̧c, J. F., Lund, H.,& Pieper, D.. (2022). A systematic review of meta-research studies finds substantial methodological heterogeneity in citation analyses to monitor evidence-based research. in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 150, 126-141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.021

Nørgaard B, Briel M, Chrysostomou S, Ristić-Medić D, Buttigieg SC, Kiisk E, Puljak L, Bała MM, Peričić TP, Les̈niak WM, Zaja̧c JF, Lund H, Pieper D. A systematic review of meta-research studies finds substantial methodological heterogeneity in citation analyses to monitor evidence-based research. in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2022;150:126-141.
doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.021 .

Nørgaard, Birgitte, Briel, Matthias, Chrysostomou, Stavri, Ristić-Medić, Danijela, Buttigieg, Sandra C., Kiisk, Ele, Puljak, Livia, Bała, Małgorzata Maria, Peričić, Tina Poklepović, Les̈niak, Wiktoria M., Zaja̧c, Joanna F., Lund, Hans, Pieper, Dawid, "A systematic review of meta-research studies finds substantial methodological heterogeneity in citation analyses to monitor evidence-based research" in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 150 (2022):126-141,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.021 . .