Can we consider meta-analysis as an original investigation? Are you aware of any references/guidelines whether it should be classified as an original investigation or not?
Hi Cem
Well - I am not aware of guidelines out there that we can reference here. Personally, I hold the opinion that meta-analyses provide new knowledge and insights that are not readily at hand, and I consider such publications "original". Reviews, systematic or not, are still reviews IMHO. I list these accordingly in my CV.
A 2002 paper from Int J Epidemiol touches on this subject, stating that in this Journal (2002) "We stress that at the IJE we do consider well-conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses as original research and publish them as such."
Link: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/1/1.full
Best
Per
Thanks for your valuable comments and the reference, Per. My opinion is similar to yours.
Hi Cem,
I don't know any defintions either
a meta-analysis is not primary research but it is Original.
Best , Bernke
dear yusuf.
actually meta analysis is the statistical analysis of a systematic review. a systematic review is consider an observational design, in the sense that we observe studies. If you want to go deeper then you should go and explore equator network. Also look for prisma guidelines. PRISMA is the initiative to make systematic reviews reproducible: it is a guideline about hoe to report your results. Also a guideline about making a protocol for systemAtic review exist, it is called prisma-p. Search tutorials in youtube, that could help.
well i hope this informTion help you
kind regards
Ramiro
Dear Ramiro,
My question was not about how to conduct/report a systematic review and meta-analysis, but if meta-analysis can be classified as an original investigation and if there is any reference for that. Thanks for your suggestions, though, I am going to explore EQUATOR network in detail.
Best Regards,
Yusuf
Dear Yusuf,
I think so, Metaanalysis is not a primary research, but it is an original one.
Best regards.
Meta analysis functions and the types of research analysis carried out within it to reach conclusions is considered original research.
Meta analysis should be classified as "original research"
Dear Prof. Yusuf Cem Kaplan,
Could you please share your experience so far? I can see that you asked the question 2 years back and have been working with many quality systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
I found that depending on the journal policies, some journals accept meta-analysis as 'Original Research', some as 'Review', unfortunately :(
Regards,
Asiful
Dear Islam,
Yes you are right :). My experience so far is just in line with what you suggest. It depends on the journal policies, some publish it as reviews and others as original research articles. I would suggest the unexperienced authors in the field to be aware of this and to check the guidelines of the journal in details in order to avoid unexpected results.
Best,
Cem
Thanks very much Prof. Yusuf for the excellent suggestion for the newcomers.
If no one has ever studied an area (asked a new significant question in an area), then the first question asked answered in that area would be an original investigation.
Based on journal, some of them claim as original; however others claim as a review or meta-analysis. Even if, from a meta-analysis we usually see lots of ground breaking findings but itself it is a secondary inveatigation only.
You might find this survey of editors of core clinical journals about the topic helpful https://abstracts.cochrane.org/2010-keystone/are-systematic-reviews-original-research-survey-editors-core-clinical-journals
Review or original article? The manuscript category of systematic review and meta-analysis in high-impact biomedical journals
https://tmu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/review-or-original-article-the-manuscript-category-of-systematic-
I can publish the results of relevant article regarding this question with you
Results: 63 of 311 biomedical journals publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical issues. In the Instructions to Authors, 4.76% classified a systematic review and meta-analysis as an original article, 15.9% as a review, 20.6% as an independent type of manuscript, and 58.7% did not mention any policy on the article type for systematic review and meta-analysis. For the article category posted at the front page of the literature, 31.7% printed systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an original article, 9.52% as a review, 4.76% as a meta-analysis, and 39.7% did not reveal the article type on the front page.
Conclusions: Most of the high-impact clinical biomedical journals did not mention their policy on classification of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the Instructions to Authors. However, a relatively large proportion of journals recognize a systematic review and meta-analysis as an original article.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Meta-Analysis