Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29233170›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2017

Acceptance of a systematic review as a thesis: survey of biomedical doctoral programs in Europe.

Livia Puljak, Damir Sapunar

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Livia PuljakCochrane Croatia, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia. livia@mefst.hr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-6061
Damir SapunarLaboratory for Pain Research, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.

Funding

Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost IP-2014-09-7672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) have been proposed as a type of research methodology that should be acceptable for a graduate research thesis. The aim of this study was to analyse whether PhD theses in European biomedical graduate programs can be partly or entirely based on SRs.

methodsIn 2016, we surveyed individuals in charge of European PhD programs from 105 institutions. The survey asked about acceptance of SRs as the partial or entire basis for a PhD thesis, their attitude towards such a model for PhD theses, and their knowledge about SR methodology.

resultsWe received responses from 86 individuals running PhD programs in 68 institutions (institutional response rate of 65%). In 47% of the programs, SRs were an acceptable study design for a PhD thesis. However, only 20% of participants expressed a personal opinion that SRs meet the criteria for a PhD thesis. The most common reasons for not accepting SRs as the basis for PhD theses were that SRs are 'not a result of a PhD candidate's independent work, but more of a team effort' and that SRs 'do not produce enough new knowledge for a dissertation'. The majority of participants were not familiar with basic concepts related to SRs; questions about meta-analyses and the type of plots frequently used in SRs were correctly answered by only one third of the participants.

conclusionsRaising awareness about the importance of SRs and their methodology could contribute to higher acceptance of SRs as a type of research that forms the basis of a PhD thesis.

Indexed as

Research DesignReview Literature as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesAcademic Dissertations as TopicEducation, GraduateEuropeHumansBiomedicinePhD programPhD thesisStudy designSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29233170
PMCPMC5727923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.