Abstract
Objective Systematic reviews (SRs) are essential to ensure that decisions are informed by an up-to-date and complete understanding of the relevant research evidence. Conducting SRs within a doctoral thesis can reduce redundant, harmful and unethical research, identify knowledge gaps, and help the doctoral student obtain important skills to conduct and use research. The output and learning process of SRs overlaps with the aims of doctoral programs. We aim to explore to what extent SRs are included in doctoral theses from all medical faculties in Sweden, and to describe the type, topic and assess the credibility of the reviews.
Study design and setting Duplicate assessors independently searched local and national repositories for doctoral theses published in 2021 within all seven medical faculties in Sweden, and categorized identified reviews based on review type, topic, and credibility using AMSTAR-2.
Results 5.4% (45/852) of all doctoral theses included a review, and 1.3% (45/3461) of all included studies were reviews. Of these, two thirds (31) were SRs and the rest (14) were broader ‘big picture’ reviews. The most common topics were interventions (42%) and exposure/etiology (32%), with no reviews of diagnostic tests. The majority of the SRs had very low (71%) or low (19%) credibility, and few reached a high (7%) or moderate (3%) credibility. The most common issues were limitations with protocols, limited search strategies, and failure to account for risk of bias in drawn conclusions.
Conclusions Few doctoral students included SRs in their theses, and the few SRs included in doctoral theses generally had a low credibility. Increasing the rate and quality of SRs in doctoral theses can help improve quality and relevance of subsequent primary research, and help students develop important skills. Actions are needed to support doctoral students to conduct high quality SRs.
What is new?
Few doctoral students included systematic reviews (SRs) in their theses
The few SRs included in doctoral theses generally had a low credibility
Increasing the rate of SRs can help improve the relevance of subsequent research
Moreover, to support development of important skills and reach educational goals
Actions are needed to support doctoral students to conduct high quality SRs
Competing Interest Statement
MR is affiliated to Cochrane Sweden, and currently receive salary for conducting and teaching systematic reviews in university settings and within Swedish government organizations. MJ is affiliated to Cochrane Sweden and declare no other conflict of interest. MB is affiliated to Cochrane Sweden, and currently receive salary for conducting and teaching systematic reviews in university settings and within Swedish government organizations. KF Declares no conflict of interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DRJ6Q
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at Open Science Framework doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DRJ6Q
