BMJ  2003;327:1083-1084 (8 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1083

Paper

Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis

¹ School of Child and Adolescent Health, Red Cross Children's Hospital, University of Cape Town, 7700 Rondebosch, South Africa, ² Primary Health Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, ³ Clinical Trials and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina 45110, Greece

Introduction

Systematic reviews are key to implementing evidence based medicine.¹ We wondered if the reviews done to date are related to the burden of disease from various conditions. Ideally, evidence should be prioritised for diseases with the greatest global impact.

Methods and results

We estimated Spearman correlations between the number of systematic reviews in two important databases (the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR) and the database of abstracts of reviews of effects (DARE)) and the burden of disease (globally and in established market economies) across disease categories. We also estimated the burden of disease for each available review measured in disability adjusted life years (DALYs).^{2 3} We used 1990 estimates of burden of disease because studies included in systematic reviews would have responded to recent past health needs. Results with estimates from 2000 were similar.

We categorised tar geted diseases in 923 reviews from the CDSR and 1899 reviews from the DARE in issue 4, 2000, of the Cochrane Library using 20 categories of the global burden of disease taxonomy.³ We excluded unclassifiable topics (health systems, pain or anaesthesia, general operative techniques, and smoking cessation). To avoid small contributors to burden of disease, a separate analysis retained only the top 10 groups of disease accounting for > 90% of the global burden of disease. Reviews in the DARE came from high profile general medical journals (173), other general journals (77), specialist journals (1532), or other reports (117). Two independent investigators did categorisations and resolved disagreements by discussion.

We looked for correlation between the number of systematic reviews and the burden of disease. Given the small number of categories, modest differences in estimated correlations between databases and subgroups should not be attributed formal statistical significance.

We categorised 866 reviews from the CDSR and 1639 reviews from the DARE (898 and 1729 disease group entries). Coverage was similar across databases except the CDSR covered maternal and perinatal conditions better. Across disease groups, global DALYs for each review varied between 0.2-33.0 million in the CDSR and 0.1-5.5 million in the DARE. Among the top 10 disease groups, nutritional deficiencies, injuries, respiratory infections, and infectious diseases were most neglected (> 2 million global DALYs for each available review in either database).

Burden of disease was modestly correlated with the number of systematic reviews in the CDSR (global r = 0.54, P = 0.014; established market economies r = 0.46, P = 0.041), the DARE (global r = 0.65, P = 0.002; established market economies r = 0.76, P < 0.001) and in subgroups of the DARE.

For the top 10 disease groups, correlations between the number of systematic reviews and the global burden of disease remained unchanged in CDSR (r = 0.52, P = 0.13), but decreased in DARE (r = 0.42, P = 0.23). The burden of disease in established market economies correlated modestly with the number of reviews in the CDSR (r = 0.56; P = 0.09); correlations in the DARE were high (overall r = 0.87, P < 0.001, range 0.63-0.94 across subgroups of reviews).

The number of reviews in the DARE seemed less responsive to global burden of disease than to the burden in established market economies, but the difference was not significant. The CDSR did not show this (figure).

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Number of systematic reviews in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR) and in the database of abstracts of reviews of effect (DARE) according to the burden of disease for each major disease group; see bmj.com for disease categories

 

Comment

The number of published systematic reviews is still relatively small and unevenly covers different diseases and aspects of health care. Often, millions of DALYs correspond to each available systematic review. Of course, new systematic reviews are continuously produced: there are currently 5877 reviews in the Cochrane Library (issue 3, 2004, including 1754 in CDSR and 4123 in DARE), but the overall picture is probably the same. Differences between the CDSR and the DARE may be because the CDSR is an electronic database without space limitations. Conversely, the content in the DARE depends more on selection forces related to the subject matter with preference for health problems in established market economies. In peer reviewed journals (and the database of abstracts of reviews of effect (DARE)), systematic reviews follow the priorities of established market economies rather than global priorities.

Measuring research and the emphasis of research is difficult.⁴ The availability of synthesised knowledge is a product of the amount of primary research. For most healthcare practitioners, synthesised knowledge is more relevant than primary research. Also, doing systematic reviews is important even if evidence is lacking.⁵ Systematic reviews fathom the existing uncertainty and help build an agenda for future research.

---

Contributors: JPAI and GHS designed the study. GHS coordinated the study. JPAI did the analysis. All authors extracted data, interpreted findings, and wrote the report. JPAI is guarantor.

Funding: No additional funding.

Competing interests: All three authors have been involved in the Cochrane Collaboration.

Ethical approval: Not needed.

The disease categories in the figure are in order on bmj.com

References

1. Mulrow CD, Cook DJ, Davidoff F. Systematic reviews: critical links in the great chain of evidence. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 389-91.[Free Full Text]
2. Isaakidis P, Swingler GH, Pienaar E, Volmink J, Ioannidis JPA. Burden of disease and randomized evidence in sub-Saharan Africa. BMJ 2002; 324: 702-4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. The global burden of disease, a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1996.
4. Gross CP, Anderson GF, Powe NR. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1881-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Alderson P, Roberts I. Should journals publish systematic reviews that find no evidence to guide practice? Examples from injury research. BMJ 2000; 320: 376-7.[Free Full Text]

(Accepted August 4, 2003)

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G Altman for the PRISMA Group
BMJ 2009 339: b2535. [Full Text]

Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study

Giuseppe G L Biondi-Zoccai, Marzia Lotrionte, Antonio Abbate, Luca Testa, Enrico Remigi, Francesco Burzotta, Marco Valgimigli, Enrico Romagnoli, Filippo Crea, and Pierfrancesco Agostoni
BMJ 2006 332: 202-209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Systematic reviews unevenly cover the global burden of disease
BMJ 2003 327: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., and the PRISMA Group, (2009). Reprint--Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. ptjournal 89: 873-880 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., the PRISMA Group, (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. ANN INTERN MED 151: 264-269 [Full text]  
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G, for the PRISMA Group, (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339: b2535-b2535 [Full text]  
• Biondi-Zoccai, G. G L, Lotrionte, M., Abbate, A., Testa, L., Remigi, E., Burzotta, F., Valgimigli, M., Romagnoli, E., Crea, F., Agostoni, P. (2006). Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ 332: 202-209 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Roberts, I., Abbasi, K. (2004). War on the roads: two years on. BMJ 328: 845-845 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

DARE is available free of charge via the internet

Paul M Wilson, et al.
bmj.com, 11 Nov 2003 [Full text]

What about stroke?

Peter Sandercock
bmj.com, 29 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>