The surge of scientific publications during the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted researchers to reevaluate their approaches in conducting secondary studies. A recent survey highlights significant changes in practices, preferences, and challenges faced by researchers who synthesize evidence to guide clinical and public health decisions.
Survey Methodology and Participant Insights
The study employed an online survey targeting researchers actively involved in secondary research, gathering responses from authors of COVID-19-related secondary studies published between 2020 and 2022. The 24-question survey encompassed general information, systematic review processes, and the impact of the pandemic on research methodologies. Statistical analyses, including Pearson’s Chi² test, identified significant correlations within the responses.
Key Findings on Tool Usage and Guideline Adherence
Only 26.9% of respondents utilized keyword-generation tools, with PubMed users more likely to employ Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) (p = 0.01486). Systematic review software, particularly Covidence, saw widespread adoption for Rapid Reviews (p = 0.00843) during the screening stage (p = 0.02400). Nevertheless, many researchers reported not using any software. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines stood at 94.9%, strongly associated with protocol registration (p = 0.00320).
• Limited use of keyword-generation tools may hinder comprehensive literature searches.
• High adoption of systematic review software indicates a shift towards more efficient screening processes.
• Strong adherence to PRISMA guidelines suggests a commitment to methodological rigor.
• Increased secondary studies during the pandemic reflect heightened demand for evidence synthesis in crisis response.
Furthermore, researchers utilizing Embase were significantly more likely to include randomized controlled trials (p = 0.00360), while Cochrane reviewers tended to rely less on non-randomized trials (p = 0.02601). During the pandemic, 64.3% of respondents observed a substantial increase in the number of secondary studies conducted.
Addressing gaps in protocol registration and keyword generation through targeted training could enhance the quality of future secondary studies. Encouraging broader adoption of keyword tools and ensuring consistent protocol registration are essential steps toward improving research outcomes.
Strong methodological practices and effective use of software tools are crucial for maintaining high standards in secondary research. By bridging current gaps and leveraging technology, researchers can produce more reliable and comprehensive evidence syntheses, thereby supporting better-informed clinical and public health decisions in ongoing and future health crises.
This article has been prepared with the assistance of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more details, please refer to our Terms and Conditions. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author.
