Evolution of international collaborative research efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews

PLoS One. 2019 Feb 27;14(2):e0211919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211919. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

This research-on-research study describes efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) by analyzing demographical and time-course collaborations between international institutions using protocols registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) or published in scientific journals. We have published an a priori protocol to develop this study. Protocols published in scientific journals were searched using the MEDLINE and Embase databases; the query terms "Systematic review" [Title] AND "protocol" [Title] were searched from February 2011 to December 2017. Protocols registered at PROSPERO during the same period were obtained by web scraping all non-Cochrane records with a Python script. After excluding protocols that had a fulfillment or duplication rate of less than 90%, they were classified as published "only in PROSPERO", "only in journals", or in "journals and PROSPERO". Results of data and metadata extraction using text mining processes were curated by two reviewers. These Datasets and R scripts are freely available to facilitate reproducibility. We obtained 20,814 protocols of non-Cochrane SRs. While "unique protocols" by reviewers' institutions from 60 countries were the most frequent, a median of 6 (2-150) institutions from 130 different countries were involved in the preparation of "collaborative protocols". The highest Ranked countries involved in overall protocol production were the UK, the U.S., Australia, Brazil, China, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. Most protocols were registered only in PROSPERO. However, the number of protocols published in scientific journals (924) or in both PROSPERO and journals (807) has increased over the last three years. Syst Rev and BMJ Open published more than half of the total protocols. While the more productive countries were involved in "unique" and "collaborative protocols", less productive countries only participated in "collaborative protocols" that were mainly published in PROSPERO. Our results suggest that, although most countries were involved in solitary production of protocols for non-Cochrane SRs during the study period, it would be useful to develop new strategies to promote international collaborations, especially with less productive countries.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Data Mining*
  • Humans
  • Metadata*
  • Periodicals as Topic
  • PubMed*
  • Systematic Reviews as Topic*

Grants and funding

This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 to JR, integrated into the National Plan of R+D+I 2008-2011 and co-financed by the ISCIII-Subdireccion General de Evaluacion and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), by project PIN-0316-2017 of the Consejeria de Salud, Junta de Andalucia (Spain) to JR, and by grants PP13/009 (JR) and PP17/001 (JG-M) of Plan Propio de movilidad para investigadores del Instituto Maimonides de Investigacion Biomedica de Cordoba (IMIBIC). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company.