Background styles in systematic review articles: a cross-sectional study protocol

Protocol

We followed the reporting guideline of meta-epidemiological study to prepare this protocol (7). We will publish this protocol in medRxiv (https://www.medrxiv.org/).

Study design

We will conduct a cross-sectional study.

Eligibility criteria

Original SR articles published in top 50 journals in MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL category in Journal Citation Reports 2018 (8). We show the lists in table 1. We will include articles published in 2018. We will include all SR articles irrespective of included primary study designs. The definition of SR is “a scientific investigation that focuses on a specific question and uses explicit, prespecified scientific methods to identify, select, assess, and summarize the findings of similar but separate studies.” (9). We will exclude Cochrane Reviews or the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review because their backgrounds styles are prespecified by the respective organizations and different from usual original articles (10,11).

Information Sources

PubMed, Web of Science

Search

We will search PubMed. The details of search formula are shown in Table 2A, and 2B.

Study selection

One review author (YK) will confirm whether the articles are SR or not.

Exposures

Four aspects that one can emphasize about one’s research question in the background section may be summarized as follows: “novelty”, “scope”, “quality”, and “update”. “Novelty” means a completely new research question.

“Scope” means that there are reports related to the research question, but authors expanded or limited the PICO.

“Quality” means that there are reports related to the research question, but there were methodological flaws.

“Update” means that there were same reports, but the search date was new.

We will conduct content analysis of the first 10 articles independently by four review authors (YK, ST, YT, or HY). We will develop a detailed guide from the initial review. We will resolve disagreements through the discussion, after that two of four review authors will conduct content analysis of the rest. We will resolve disagreements through the discussion. If necessary, another third reviewer will act as an arbiter. We will add other categories through the review if necessary. We will assess the agreement with kappa values.

Primary outcome

The primary outcome will be whether the article was published in top 10 journal or not.

Data items

Details are shown in Table 3. Considering that papers published in top journals will have many citations, we defined confoundings following previous studies which investigated the prognostic factors for increased citations (12–15). We will retrieve some data from Web of Science application programming interface using Python 3.7.4 software program (Python Software Foundation, De, USA).

Statistical analysis

We will use descriptive statistics to summarize. We will use chi-squared test and logistic regression analysis. The primary analysis will be logistic regression predicting publication in high impact journals, with covariates as listed above. Two-tailed p values will be considered statistically significant if less than 0.05. We will use Stata ver. 16.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas, United States of America). We determined the sample size as below: we will use 4 exposures and 5 confoundings. We need 90 events for the validity of the logistic model (16). We will randomly select 90 articles from the top 10 journals and 90 articles from the 11^th to 50^th journal as control.