Historian itsetutkistelu

Pääkirjoitus

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.

Diet and the risk of head and neck cancer: a pooled analysis in the INHANCE consortium.

We investigated the association between diet and head and neck cancer (HNC) risk using data from the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology (INHANCE) consortium. The INHANCE pooled data included 22 case-control studies with 14,520 cases and 22,737 controls. Center-specific quartiles among the controls were used for food groups, and frequencies per week were used for single food items. A dietary pattern score combining high fruit and vegetable intake and low red meat intake was created. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the dietary items on the risk of HNC were estimated with a two-stage random-effects logistic regression model. An inverse association was observed for higher-frequency intake of fruit (4th vs. 1st quartile OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.43-0.62, p (trend) < 0.01) and vegetables (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.49-0.90, p (trend) = 0.01). Intake of red meat (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.13-1.74, p p (trend) < 0.01) was positively associated with HNC risk. Higher dietary pattern scores, reflecting high fruit/vegetable and low red meat intake, were associated with reduced HNC risk (per score increment OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.84-0.97).