Critical EPICOT items were absent in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews: a bibliometric analysis

Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Tamara Kredo; Vivian Welch; Sara Mursleen; Stephanie Ross; Babalwa Zani; Nkengafac Villyen Motaze; Leah Quinlan

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.10.018

Critical EPICOT items were absent in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews: a bibliometric analysis

J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jun:74:66-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.10.018. Epub 2015 Nov 12.

Authors

Lawrence Mbuagbaw¹, Tamara Kredo², Vivian Welch³, Sara Mursleen⁴, Stephanie Ross⁴, Babalwa Zani⁵, Nkengafac Villyen Motaze⁵, Leah Quinlan⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S4K1. Electronic address: mbuagblc@mcmaster.ca.
² South African Cochrane Centre, South African Medical Research Council, Francie van Zijl Drive, Parowvalley, 7505 Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa.
³ Centre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, 43 Bruyère St, Annex E, K1N 5C8, Ontario, Canada.
⁴ Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S4K1.
⁵ South African Cochrane Centre, South African Medical Research Council, Francie van Zijl Drive, Parowvalley, 7505 Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa; Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care, Department of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, PO Box 241, Cape Town 800, South Africa.
⁶ Bruyère Continuing Care, Bruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, 43 Bruyère Street, K1N 5C8, Ontario, Canada.

PMID: 26582595
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.10.018

Abstract

Objectives: To summarize the current gaps in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) research evidence, describe the adequacy of reporting "implications for research," and map the number of studies that inform reviews with the prevalence of HIV for each country.

Study design and setting: A bibliometric analyses of HIV reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews with content analysis of the "implications for research" section.

Results: We analyzed 103 high-quality reviews published as of March 2014. They included a median of five studies (min 0 and max 44). Almost all the reviews recommended more trials (89.3%). Limitations in trial design, duration, setting, sample size, and choice of participants were also noted. Reporting of EPICOT+ items was as follows: evidence (35.9%), population (57.3%), intervention (71.8%), comparison (20.4%), outcomes (57.3%), time stamp (34.0%), and disease burden (13.6%). The primary studies were conducted in 67 countries. Six of the top 10 countries in which primary studies were conducted had a high HIV prevalence.

Conclusion: Knowledge gaps were identified for research in younger participants, over longer periods, using more pragmatic interventions, conducted in resource-limited settings and incorporating economic evaluations. Implications for research are not always reported according to the EPICOT+ format. Not all countries with a high prevalence of HIV are contributing sufficiently to HIV research.

Keywords: Cochrane; EPICOT+; HIV research; Implications for research; Knowledge gaps.

Publication types

Review

MeSH terms

Bibliometrics*
HIV Infections / epidemiology*
Humans