| “Systematic reviews such as a Cochrane meta-analysis is an original research article.” |
“By definition, a “review” is not original research. If a systematic review yields new knowledge, it may be considered research in some fields of inquiry” |
| “… we do consider complex systematic reviews with protocols and the like research projects.” |
“…we are interested in original observations and new mechanisms of disease.” |
| “I consider them important scholarly work.” |
“We agree that a systematic review is rigorous scholarship and that a narrative review can be. But that is not the same as the “scholarship of discovery” |
| “Grey area, but we consider this original” |
“We are unsettled in our opinion. To some extent it depends on the manner in which the review was conducted: a strictly statistical analysis shows little intellectual input, is seldom of value and always says ‘more research is needed’.” |
| “…we DO consider meta-analyses as original research. However, a systematic review without a meta-analysis is considered a Review Article” |
– |
