Development of the systematic review duplication (SRD) tool: a protocol for assessing duplication in intervention-based systematic reviews

Abstract

Introduction The rapid expansion of systematic reviews (SRs) has led to increasing concerns about research duplication and redundancy. While several tools exist to assess the quality and risk of bias of SRs, no standardized instrument specifically evaluates the degree of duplication between SRs on similar topics. This protocol describes the development and validation of the systematic review duplication (SRD) tool, which is designed to systematically assess and quantify duplication between intervention-based SRs in healthcare. Methods The development process follows established guidelines for creating reporting and quality assessment tools and comprises three phases: (Ⅰ) preparatory work, including team formation and tool conceptualization; (Ⅱ) tool development, involving initial item generation through a systematic literature review and analysis of existing tools, item validation through pilot testing with 40 SRs across 17 disease categories, modified Delphi surveys, and consensus meetings; and (Ⅲ) dissemination through academic channels and professional networks. The SRD tool will evaluate duplication across four domains: research topic, research methods, research results, and research quality. Expert consensus will be achieved through a two-round modified Delphi process with an agreement threshold of at least 70%. Inter-rater reliability will be assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Kendall’s W coefficient. Expected outcomes: The SRD tool is expected to provide a standardized, user-friendly instrument for distinguishing necessary replication from redundant duplication in SRs. It will be available as both web-based and Excel-based applications. Discussion The SRD tool is intended to fill a critical gap in evidence synthesis methodology by enabling the systematic assessment of duplication and supporting informed decision-making by researchers, journal editors, guideline developers, and clinicians.

Keywords

systematic review / research duplication / research redundancy / methodological tool / evidence synthesis / protocol

References

[1] Sur R, Dahm P. History of evidence-based medicine. Indian J Urol. 2011; 27(4):487.

[2] Kranke P. Evidence-based practice: how to perform and use systematic reviews for clinical decision-making. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010; 27(9):763-772.

[3] Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016; 13(5):e1002028.

[4] Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 138:1-11.

[5] Katsura M, Kuriyama A, Tada M, et al. High variability in results and methodological quality among overlapping systematic reviews on the same topics in surgery: a meta-epidemiological study. Br J Surg. 2021; 108(12):1521-1529.

[6] Riva N, Puljak L, Moja L, et al. Multiple overlapping systematic reviews facilitate the origin of disputes: the case of thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 97:1-13.

[7] Chapelle C, Ollier E, Bonjean P, et al. Replication of systematic reviews: is it to the benefit or detriment of methodological quality? J Clin Epidemiol. 2023; 162: 98-106.

[8] Nosek BA, Hardwicke TE, Moshontz H, et al. Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annu Rev Psychol. 2022; 73:719-748.

[9] Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JPA. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ. 2013;347:f4501.

[10] Page MJ, Welch VA, Haddaway NR, Karunananthan S, Maxwell LJ, Tugwell P. “One more time”: why replicating some syntheses of evidence relevant to COVID-19 makes sense. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 125: 179-182.

[11] Puljak L, Lund H. Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2023; 12(1):63.

[12] Siontis KC, Ioannidis JPA. Replication, duplication, and waste in a quarter million systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018; 11(12):e005212.

[13] Lunny C, Reid EK, Neelakant T, et al. A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': a meta-research study of research waste. Res Synth Meth. 2022; 13(3):315-329.

[14] Karunananthan S, Grimshaw JM, Maxwell L, et al. Can a replication revolution resolve the duplication crisis in systematic reviews? BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024; 29(5):285-288.

[15] Ioannidis JPA. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016; 94(3):485-514.

[16] Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021: n71.

[17] Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017: j4008.

[18] Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JPT, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 69:225-234.

[19] Marques-Cruz M, Vieira RJ, Martinho-Dias D, et al. Reported methodological quality of medical systematic reviews: development of an assessment tool (ReMarQ) and meta-research study. Res Synth Methods. 2025; 16(1):175-193.

[20] Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines: helping to achieve high standards in reporting health research studies. Maturitas. 2009; 63(1):4-6.

[21] Whiting P, Wolff R, Mallett S, Simera I, Savović J. A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1):204.

[22] Zhang Z, Li R, Chen Y, et al. Integration of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine with modern biomedicine: the scientization, evidence, and challenges for integration of traditional Chinese medicine. Acupunct Herb Med. 2024; 4(1):68-78.