Keywords
In their letter to the editor regarding our publication “Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review” [
[1]
]. Morales-Plaza et al. make an important point about socioeconomic difficulties that are relevant limitations of systematic review (SR) production. We find the issue very important. However, as our scoping review shows such barriers exists even in high- and middle-income countries [[2]
], we therefore fully acknowledge the challenges authors of SRs face anywhere.- Nussbaumer-Streit B
- Ellen M
- Klerings I
- Sfetcu R
- Riva N
- Mahmić-Kaknjo M
- et al.
Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; (S0895-4356(21)00171-2https://doi.org/)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019
The findings of our scoping review showed that factors such as resource unavailability, poor internet service, and lack of supportive software like general web-based collaborative software or specific SR-tailored software like abstract screening programs can be reasons why SR production is more resource intensive than necessary [
[2]
]. As Morales-Plaza et al. highlight, these are challenges that author's in low- and lower-middle-income countries, in particular, face since medical databases, journal articles, and software are still often behind a paywall. These barriers may contribute to inequalities in SR production globally [- Nussbaumer-Streit B
- Ellen M
- Klerings I
- Sfetcu R
- Riva N
- Mahmić-Kaknjo M
- et al.
Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; (S0895-4356(21)00171-2https://doi.org/)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019
[3]
]. There is optimism that these inequalities will decrease as scientific communities move toward open science and open software that provide free and efficient alternatives to software beyond paywalls.As suggested by Morales-Plaza et al., international collaborations could be another way to overcome such barriers, increase capacity building, and foster high-quality SR production all over the world. Cochrane is a good example of how this can be accomplished. Members from more than 220 countries contribute as researchers, clinicians, and consumers to the Cochrane SR production, translation, and dissemination (www.cochrane.org/about-us). However, this work is often not funded, imposing difficulties on researchers, especially those from low- and lower-middle-income countries.
Also, the European Union (EU) fosters international collaboration within the European Region and beyond by funding research networks. Our scoping review was conducted by an international author team within such a research network—the EVBRES (Evidence-Based RESearch) COST Action CA17117 (www.evbres.eu). The network provides great opportunities for researchers from countries with different income levels and funding opportunities to share expertise, gain resources, utilize synergies, and learn from one another.
Because the EVBRES COST Action is EU funded, most coauthors of the scoping review are from higher-middle-income and high-income countries in or near Europe. However, the authors’ origins had no influence on the results of the scoping review. We provided a global view since we conducted a comprehensive search to identify all published studies on resource use irrespective of the publication language. We mapped the available evidence, not our personal experiences and opinions.
Finally, we would like to emphasize the goal of EVBRES: to promote evidence-based research and to reduce research waste (www.evbres.eu). This also includes the production of SRs, meaning SRs should only be completed for important questions that have not yet been answered by an existing up-to-date SR. More international collaboration is needed to limit redundant research and to support the efforts to produce relevant original research and SRs in all parts of the world.
References
- Letter to the editor regarding ‘Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review.J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;
- Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review.J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; (S0895-4356(21)00171-2https://doi.org/)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019
- Worldwide inequality in production of systematic reviews.Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2015; 29 (PMID: 26913272; PMCID: PMC4764280)
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 16, 2021
Accepted:
October 11,
2021
Footnotes
None of the authors report any financial conflicts of interest with respect to the topic of this manuscript. All authors have a general interest in evidence synthesis methods.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
