The Perspective on Secondary Research Practices: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

TL;DR

This study examines how researchers conduct secondary studies, like systematic reviews, and how the pandemic affected these practices.

Contribution

It identifies trends in tool usage, guideline adherence, and pandemic-related changes in secondary research practices.

Findings

Only 26.9% of researchers use keyword-generation tools, but those using PubMed are more likely to use MeSH.

Covidence is widely used for Rapid Reviews, especially during screening, and PRISMA adherence is high among respondents.

The pandemic led to a 64.3% increase in secondary studies, but gaps remain in protocol registration and keyword practices.

Abstract

Background: The surge in scientific publications during the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the need for reliable secondary studies such as Systematic Reviews, synthesising evidence to guide clinical and public health decisions. This study aimed to analyse the current practices, preferences, and challenges faced by researchers conducting secondary studies and assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these practices. Methods: An online survey was conducted among researchers actively involved in secondary research. Email addresses were collected from PubMed for publications related to COVID-19 secondary studies between 2020 and 2022. The survey comprised 24 questions, including single- and multiple-choice formats, covering general information, Systematic Review processes, and changes during the pandemic. Statistical analysis, including Pearson’s Chi2 test, was performed on key responses to identify significant correlations. Results: This study highlights that only 26.9% of respondents use keyword-generation tools. However, those using PubMed were more likely to utilise MeSH (p = 0.01486, df = 1, Chi2 = 5.932568). Systematic Review software adoption was prevalent, particularly for Rapid Reviews, with Covidence being commonly used (p = 0.00843, df = 1, Chi2 = 6.938953), especially during the screening stage (p = 0.02400, df = 1, Chi2 = 5.094851). Despite this, many researchers still reported that they did not use any software. A total of 94.9% of respondents reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and protocol registration was strongly associated with following these guidelines (p = 0.00320, df = 2, Chi2 = 11.48858). Researchers using Embase were significantly more likely to incorporate RCTs (p = 0.00360, df = 1, Chi2 = 8.476092), while Cochrane reviewers showed a lower reliance on non-randomised trials (p = 0.02601, df = 1, Chi2 = 4.955580). During the COVID-19 pandemic, 64.3% of respondents observed a significant increase in secondary studies. Conclusions: This study highlights key trends in secondary research, emphasising adherence to established guidelines and the growing reliance on software tools. However, gaps remain in protocol registration and keyword generation practices. Addressing these gaps through targeted training may improve the quality of future secondary studies, particularly during global health crises.

Figures