Pubrica's team of researchers and authors create scientific and medical research articles that can serve as an invaluable tool for practitioners and authors. Pubrica medical writers assist you in writing and editing the introduction by presenting the reader with the limitations or gaps in the specified study subject. Our experts understand the structure that follows the broad topic, the problem, and the background before moving on to a narrow topic to state the hypothesis. Visit Here - https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/

1. An Academic presentation by
Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical
Operations, Pubrica
Group: www.pubrica.com
Email: sales@pubrica.com
Pain Points
SYSTEMATIC
REVIEWS AND
META-ANALYSES

2. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are single
investigations that aggregate the findings of several
other research on a specific topic, such as the
efficacy or safety of a medicine or medical device.
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Services,
when completed correctly, are regarded as the most
significant evidence on a specific issue and are
highly valuable for making health care decisions
based on data from several research rather than
evidence from the most current or most extensive
individual studies.
However, if systematic reviews and meta-analyses
are not done correctly or are biased, they may be of
limited utility or even deceptive.

3. PRODUCTION OF SYSTEMATIC
REVIEWS ON A LARGE SCALE
Even though methods for conducting systematic reviews and
meta-analyses have been around for many decades, they were
not widely used in biomedical and health care research until the
late 1980s and 1990s, owing to a lack of popular software to
create them in large quantities at the time.
In 2003, researchers from the Cochrane Collaboration, a well-
known international non-profit organization specializing in
systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Experts, predicted that
approximately 10,000 systematic reviews would be required to
refuge all clinical trials in health care research.
Contd...

4. (JPA Ioannidis 2016) However, Ioannidis discovered that from January 1, 1986, to
December 4, 2015, almost 59,000 meta-analyses and 267,000 systematic reviews were
indexed in MEDLINE. The increase of these publications support has surpassed the rate of
development of studies overall: Between 1991 and 2014, yearly publications climbed by
more than 2,700% for systematic reviews and 2,600% for meta-analyses, compared to a
153 % annual rise for all MEDLINE-indexed items.

5. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND
META-ANALYSIS DUPLICATION
The increase in writing the systematic reviews
and Meta-Analysis services , Manuscript is
primarily due to duplication, as most topics
have many systematic reviews and meta-
analysis.
For example, a BMJ review of 73 randomly
chosen meta-analyses published in 2010
discovered that for 2/3rd of these studies, there
was at least one, and often as many as 13, new
meta-analyses published on the same issue by
early 2013.
Contd...

6. It may be claimed that having many independent writers look at the same data to see if they
reach the same results and conclusions or study other outcomes than those included in
initial evaluations has some merit.
However, according to the aforementioned BMJ study, over a quarter of subsequent meta-
analyses were undertaken by some original meta-analyses' authors, and 65 % of subsequent
meta-analyses did not include other outcomes than those included in the original meta-
analyses.
Furthermore, overlapping Clinical Meta-Analysis experts might be perplexing since they may
not contain the same primary studies that satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the original meta-
analysis.
While this method may explain why overlapping reviews provide diverse outcomes, readers
may find it challenging to reconcile disparate conclusions.

7. Another critical issue with systematic reviews
and meta-analyses is that they frequently
attempt to piece together information from much
primary research that are intrinsically different
without addressing variations in these studies.
FRAGMENTED
EVIDENCE

8. CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST
Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses
are carried out by investigators or contracting
companies with ties to the pharmaceutical or
medical device businesses.
This is a concerning trend since research has
shown that industry-sponsored reviews are less
open about their procedures and frequently
reach conclusions more favorable to the sector
than evaluations performed by independent
investigators.

9. CONCLUSION
Because of the aforementioned problems, which
include unneeded, misleading, and contradictory
systematic reviews and meta-analyses, this study
finds that this defective research does not promote
evidence-based medicine and health care.
He thinks that just 3% of all meta-analyses are
excellent and valuable.
Contd...

10. As a result, it calls for a significant overhaul in the production of biomedical research
and its credible synthesis, including planning and conducting prospective systematic
reviews and meta-analyses without conflicts of interest through collaboration between
primary study researchers and those of future systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
These reforms will require the support of many stakeholders, including funders,
scientists, medical publications, and consumers.
Meanwhile, readers of systematic reviews and meta-analyses should take their
conclusions with a grain of salt.
Readers should search for any conflicts of interest and see whether other studies found
different results or findings.

11. ABOUT PUBRICA
Pubrica's team of researchers and authors create
scientific and medical research articles that can serve
as an invaluable tool for practitioners and authors.
Pubrica medical writers assist you in writing and
editing the introduction by presenting the reader with
the limitations or gaps in the specified study subject.
Our experts understand the structure that follows the
broad topic, the problem, and the background before
moving on to a narrow topic to state the hypothesis.

12. REFERENCES
1.Ioannidis J. Next-generation systematic reviews:
Prospective meta-analysis, individual-level data, networks
and umbrella reviews. Br J Sport Med. 2017; February 21.
doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-097621.
2.Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology
and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of
biomedical research: A cross-sectional study. PLOS Med.
2016;13(5):e1002028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028.

13. UNITED KINGDOM
+44 1618186353
INDIA
+91-9884350006
EMAIL
sales@pubrica.com
Contact Us