ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses are on top of the evidence-based medicine pyramid, yet many of them are not completed after they are begun. Many factors impacting the publication of meta-analysis works have been discussed, and their association with publication likelihood has been investigated. These factors include the type of systematic review, journal metrics, h-index of the corresponding author, country of the corresponding author, funding sources, and duration of publication. In our current review, we aim to investigate these various factors and their impact on the likelihood of publication. A comprehensive review of 397 registered protocols retrieved from five databases was performed to investigate the different factors that might affect the likelihood of publication. These factors include the type of systematic review, journal metrics, h-index of the corresponding author, country of the corresponding author, funding sources, and duration of publication. RESULTS: We found that corresponding authors in developed countries and English-speaking countries had higher likelihoods of publication: 206/320 (p = 0.018) and 158/236 (p = 0.006), respectively. Factors affecting publications are the countries of corresponding author (p = 0.033), whether they are from developed countries (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2-3.1, p = 0.016), from English-speaking countries (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2-2.7, p = 0.005), update status of the protocol (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.0-2.6, p = 0.033), and external funding (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1-2.7, p = 0.025). Multivariable regression retains three variables as significant predictors for the publication of a systematic review: whether it is the corresponding author from developed countries (p = 0.013), update status of the protocol (p = 0.014), and external funding (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Being on top of the evidence hierarchy, systematic review and meta-analysis are the keys to informed clinical decision-making. Updating protocol status and external funding are significant influences on their publications. More attentions should be paid to the methodological quality of this type of publication.
Subject(s)
Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Meta-Analysis as TopicABSTRACT
We systematically searched and meta-analyzed the epidemiological characteristics, frequency of clinical signs, and outcomes of dengue-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Ten electronic databases were searched systematically plus manual search of reference lists to identify relevant articles published until May 2017. The highest number of reported cases were from South-East Asia region (62 cases), followed by Western Pacific region (20 cases), and America (31 cases). The term "dengue hemorrhagic fever" predominated in studies that used the World Health Organization 1997 definition (59.7%), whereas "severe dengue" predominated in studies using the World Health Organization 2009 definition (76.8%). Among 122 cases, fever, splenomegaly, hepatomegaly, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and serum ferritin ≥500 µg/L were likely to report by articles representing by large sample size. The pooled proportion of these findings were as follows: fever 97.2%, hepatomegaly 70.2%, splenomegaly 78.4%, thrombocytopenia 90.1%, anemia 76.0%, and serum ferritin ≥500 µg/L 97.1%. This study highlighted a high case fatality rate (14.6%) and co-infection among dengue hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis patients. We suggest that long fever duration, persistent thrombocytopenia, elevated serum ferritin, and lactate dehydrogenase levels could be good diagnostic indicators for dengue-associated hemophagocytic syndrome. Bone marrow aspiration could be used as one criterion for diagnosis but is not obligatory. Further research is needed to examine the possible risk difference for development of hemophagocytic syndrome and to explore potential relationships between specific dengue classifications and dengue-associated hemophagocytic syndrome.
