• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Pitfalls in systematic reviews.

作者信息

Farquhar Cynthia, Vail Andy

机构信息

Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

出版信息

Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Aug;18(4):433-9. doi: 10.1097/01.gco.0000233939.44178.4b.

DOI:10.1097/01.gco.0000233939.44178.4b
PMID:16794425
Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The term 'evidence-based medicine' means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. An important source for those who wish to practise evidence-based medicine is the systematic review. Systematic reviews, however, are not without their pitfalls. This review will consider the problems and challenges for researchers and users of systematic reviews.

RECENT FINDINGS

Failure to adequately assess study quality, funding bias, publication bias, reliance on outcomes that provide no help in clinical decision-making, analysis errors and the incorrect use of evidence statements are all common pitfalls in systematic reviews.

SUMMARY

There are several steps in completing a systematic review. These include developing the clinical question, searching for all available literature, study selection, assessment of study quality, data extraction, data analysis, interpreting the results, implications for practice and further research, and finally updating the review in a timely manner. Authors of systematic reviews need to be aware of these problems and attempt to address them so that research evidence may be of clinical value to both providers and consumers of healthcare.

摘要

相似文献

1
Pitfalls in systematic reviews.
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Aug;18(4):433-9. doi: 10.1097/01.gco.0000233939.44178.4b.
2
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
3
Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.消费者和医疗服务提供者合作对卫生服务规划、提供和评估的影响。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 15;9(9):CD013373. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013373.pub2.
4
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.拓扑替康治疗卵巢癌的临床有效性和成本效益的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280.
5
Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.卫生技术评估中决策分析模型良好实践指南综述。
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Sep;8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158. doi: 10.3310/hta8360.
6
Population-based interventions for reducing sexually transmitted infections, including HIV infection.基于人群的减少性传播感染(包括艾滋病毒感染)的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(2):CD001220. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001220.pub2.
7
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.用于戒烟的电子烟。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jan 29;1(1):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub9.
8
Comparison of the effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease: a systematic review of the literature.吸入装置在哮喘和慢性阻塞性气道疾病中的有效性比较:文献系统评价
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(26):1-149. doi: 10.3310/hta5260.
9
Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.利用预后信息为乳腺癌患者选择辅助性全身治疗的成本效益
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. doi: 10.3310/hta10340.
10
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.电子烟戒烟。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 8;1(1):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub8.

引用本文的文献

1
Progress in evidence based reproductive surgery.循证生殖外科的进展
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2011;3(4):238-44.
2
A critique of the European Commission document, "State of the Art Assessment of Endocrine Disrupters".对欧洲委员会文件《内分泌干扰物的现状评估》的批判
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2012 Jul;42(6):465-73. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2012.690367. Epub 2012 May 26.