Table 1.
The main reasons for not recognising a systematic review as the basis for a PhD thesis in European biomedical graduate programs
| Survey items | Agree n (%) | Neither agree nor disagree n (%) | Disagree n (%) | Don’t know n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Systematic reviews are not a result of the candidate’s independent work since systematic reviews tend to be conducted by a team | 41 (57.7%) | 11 (15.5%) | 11 (15.5) | 8 (11.3%) |
| Systematic reviews do not produce enough new knowledge for a dissertation | 38 (53.5%) | 8 (11.3%) | 20 (28.2%) | 5 (7.0%) |
| Because of a concern arising when there are no primary studies available on a particular topic, or the inclusion criteria are too narrow (‘empty reviews’) | 22 (31.0%) | 26 (36.6%) | 11 (15.5%) | 12 (16.9%) |
| Systematic reviews are too easy to perform | 22 (31.0%) | 14 (18.7%) | 31 (43.6%) | 4 (5.6%) |
| There are no major differences between classical narrative and systematic reviews | 14 (18.7%) | 12 (16.9%) | 37 (2.1%) | 8 (11.3%) |
| Lack of expertise among committee members regarding systematic reviews, since they should be experienced in systematic review methodology | 24 (33.8%) | 22 (31.0%) | 18 (25.4%) | 7 (9.9%) |
| Lack of adequate training of candidates in methodology of systematic reviews | 33 (46.5%) | 19 (26.8%) | 15 (21.1%) | 6 (8.5%) |
| Students are not experienced enough to perform critical analysis of primary studies | 31 (43.7%) | 17 (23.9%) | 18 (25.4%) | 5 (7.0%) |
| Lack of appreciation of systematic review methodology among faculty members | 25 (35.0%) | 23 (32.0%) | 18 (25.0%) | 5 (7.0%) |