Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Inclusion, characteristics and methodological limitations of systematic reviews in doctoral theses: A cross-sectional study of all universities in Sweden

Ringsten, M. LU orcid ; Färnqvist, K. ; Bruschettini, M. LU orcid and Johansson, M. LU (2025) In Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods 3(1). p.1-9
Abstract
Abstract Intro A systematic review (SR) attempts to find, assess and summarize all the empirical evidence to answer a specific research question. We aim to explore to what extent reviews are included in doctoral theses from all universities with a medical faculty in Sweden, and to describe the type, topic and assess the methodological quality of the reviews. Methods Duplicate assessors independently searched local and national repositories for doctoral theses published in 2021 within all seven medical faculties in Sweden, and categorized identified reviews based on review type, topic, and methodological quality using AMSTAR-2. Results 5.4% (45/852) of all doctoral theses included a review, and 1.3% (45/3461) of all included studies were... (More)
Abstract Intro A systematic review (SR) attempts to find, assess and summarize all the empirical evidence to answer a specific research question. We aim to explore to what extent reviews are included in doctoral theses from all universities with a medical faculty in Sweden, and to describe the type, topic and assess the methodological quality of the reviews. Methods Duplicate assessors independently searched local and national repositories for doctoral theses published in 2021 within all seven medical faculties in Sweden, and categorized identified reviews based on review type, topic, and methodological quality using AMSTAR-2. Results 5.4% (45/852) of all doctoral theses included a review, and 1.3% (45/3461) of all included studies were reviews. Of these, two thirds (31) were SRs and the rest (14) were broader ?big picture? reviews. The most common topics were interventions (42%) and exposure/etiology (32%), with no reviews of diagnostic tests. The majority of the SRs had very low (71%) or low (19%) quality, and few reached a high (7%) or moderate (3%) quality. The most common issues were limitations with protocols, limited search strategies, and failure to account for risk of bias in drawn conclusions. Conclusions Few doctoral students included SRs in their theses, and the few SRs included in doctoral theses generally had a low quality. There is no consensus on the appropriate proportion of doctoral thesis including a SR. We argue that conducting a SR within a doctoral thesis can reduce redundant, harmful and unethical research, identify knowledge gaps, and help the doctoral student obtain important skills to conduct and use research. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
doctoral thesis, quality, scoping review, systematic review, university
in
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
volume
3
issue
1
article number
e70015
pages
1 - 9
publisher
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
DOI
10.1002/cesm.70015
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
da9ff4bd-fe47-4f97-a7aa-2157432b1041
date added to LUP
2025-01-24 16:02:54
date last changed
2025-04-04 14:15:49
@article{da9ff4bd-fe47-4f97-a7aa-2157432b1041,
  abstract     = {{Abstract Intro A systematic review (SR) attempts to find, assess and summarize all the empirical evidence to answer a specific research question. We aim to explore to what extent reviews are included in doctoral theses from all universities with a medical faculty in Sweden, and to describe the type, topic and assess the methodological quality of the reviews. Methods Duplicate assessors independently searched local and national repositories for doctoral theses published in 2021 within all seven medical faculties in Sweden, and categorized identified reviews based on review type, topic, and methodological quality using AMSTAR-2. Results 5.4% (45/852) of all doctoral theses included a review, and 1.3% (45/3461) of all included studies were reviews. Of these, two thirds (31) were SRs and the rest (14) were broader ?big picture? reviews. The most common topics were interventions (42%) and exposure/etiology (32%), with no reviews of diagnostic tests. The majority of the SRs had very low (71%) or low (19%) quality, and few reached a high (7%) or moderate (3%) quality. The most common issues were limitations with protocols, limited search strategies, and failure to account for risk of bias in drawn conclusions. Conclusions Few doctoral students included SRs in their theses, and the few SRs included in doctoral theses generally had a low quality. There is no consensus on the appropriate proportion of doctoral thesis including a SR. We argue that conducting a SR within a doctoral thesis can reduce redundant, harmful and unethical research, identify knowledge gaps, and help the doctoral student obtain important skills to conduct and use research.}},
  author       = {{Ringsten, M. and Färnqvist, K. and Bruschettini, M. and Johansson, M.}},
  keywords     = {{doctoral thesis; quality; scoping review; systematic review; university}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{01}},
  number       = {{1}},
  pages        = {{1--9}},
  publisher    = {{John Wiley & Sons Inc.}},
  series       = {{Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods}},
  title        = {{Inclusion, characteristics and methodological limitations of systematic reviews in doctoral theses: A cross-sectional study of all universities in Sweden}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70015}},
  doi          = {{10.1002/cesm.70015}},
  volume       = {{3}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}