A Cross-Sectional Study on Inequity and Unmet Needs in Conducting Systematic Reviews (SRMA) and Meta-Analysis Among Medical Students and Junior Doctors

Abstract

Background

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow a transparent, rigorous, and replicable analysis to summarize the results of multiple related studies and are considered top of the evidence-based medicine study hierarchy. The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the unmet educational needs of students worldwide, notably those from underprivileged backgrounds. This cross-sectional study aimed to ascertain students’ and junior doctors’ attitudes on their current knowledge, confidence and preparedness of appraising and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis internationally.

Methods

A free online webinar was held in May 2021 by the senior author and a pre-event questionnaire was distributed. Responses collected were used for analysis anonymously to ascertain students’ knowledge, experience, and confidence in preparing a systematic review and meta-analysis using a 1–5 Likert scale using IBM SPSS 26.0. Associations were examined using Chi-square and crosstabs analysis.

Results

Out of 2004 responses from 104 countries included in the analysis, the majority of delegates were from lower middle-income countries and were not familiar with the PRISMA checklist (59.2% and 81.1% respectively of the total number of participants). The majority had never attended any formal training (83%) and felt their medical institute gave them minimal advice (72.5%) in preparing systematic reviews. Among those who had attended formal training, the proportion was significantly higher in those belonging to high and upper middle-income countries combined (20.3%) than lower and lower-middle-income countries combined (15%).

Conclusion

This study highlights gaps that need addressing to enhance the knowledge of medical students and junior doctors performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clear disparities are found in country income and the level of education. Future large-scale studies are needed to understand the rationale of working on online research projects and the opportunities available to medical students and junior doctors that may lead to medical curriculum changes.

Keywords:

• medical education
• systematic review
• meta-analysis
• inequity

Author Contributions

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.