Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses- A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Publications in Palliative Care Journals

Abstract

Context: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are regarded as the highest in the hierarchy of evidence which require clinicians to be able to efficiently locate, critically appraise and appropriately apply the best available palliative care evidence to particular clinical care scenarios. Aims: This study aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in palliative care journals. Settings and Design: Systematic review of palliative care journals Methods and Material: MEDLINE database was searched for journals with name 'palliative' in their title and articles published from January 2007-December 2011 were then searched in individual journals using search terms 'systematic review' OR 'meta-analysis' in Title/Abstract. The reporting rates of all journals were compared. The selected articles were categorized into assessment and treatment. The articles were also grouped under practice, education, research and administration. Statistical analysis used: Descriptive analysis using frequencies and percentiles was done using SPSS for Windows version 16.0. Results: The overall reporting rate for systematic reviews and meta-analyses was 1.97% (79/4000). Palliat Med had the highest reporting rate of 7.95% (47/591) followed by BMC Palliat Care at 5.55% (5/90) and J Palliat Care at 2.04% (4/196). Medical journals had the highest reporting rate of 2.89% (59/2040) followed by multidisciplinary journals at1.33% (19/1419), nursing journals at .21% (1/464) and other (social work) journals at 0% (0/77). Conclusions:The twelve palliative care journals analyzed in this study published few systematic reviews and meta-analyses at a five-year reporting rate of 1.97%, with Palliat Med having the highest reporting rate.