Solidage Research Group, McGill University/Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Oct 12;9:68. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-68.
Over the past two decades, there has been a substantial growth in the body of literature on frailty in older persons. However, there is no consensus on its definition or the criteria used to identify frailty. In response to this lack of consensus, the Canadian Initiative on Frailty and Aging carried out a set of systematic reviews of the literature in ten areas of frailty research: biological basis; social basis; prevalence; risk factors; impact; identification; prevention and management; environment and technology; health services; health and social policy. This paper describes the methodology that was developed for the systematic reviews.
A Central Coordination Group (CCG) was responsible for developing the methodology. This involved the development of search strategies and keywords, article selection processes, quality assessment tools, and guidelines for the synthesis of results. Each review was conducted by two experts in the content area, with the assistance of methodologists and statisticians from the CCG.
Conducting a series of systematic literature reviews involving a range of disciplines on a concept that does not have a universally accepted definition posed several conceptual and methodological challenges. The most important conceptual challenge was determining what would qualify as literature on frailty. The methodological challenges arose from our goal of structuring a consistent methodology for reviewing literature from diverse fields of research. At the outset, certain methodological guidelines were deemed essential to ensure the validity of all the reviews. Nevertheless, it was equally important to permit flexibility in the application of the proposed methodology to capture the essence of frailty research within the given fields.
The results of these reviews allowed us to establish the status of current knowledge on frailty and promote collaboration between disciplines. Conducting systematic literature reviews in health science that involve multiple disciplines is a mechanism to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and a more integrated understanding of health. This initiative highlighted the need for further methodological development in the performance of multidisciplinary systematic reviews.
在过去的二十年中,关于老年人虚弱的文献数量大幅增加。然而,对于其定义或用于识别虚弱的标准,尚无共识。针对这种缺乏共识的情况,加拿大虚弱与老龄化倡议进行了一系列关于虚弱研究十个领域的系统评价:生物学基础;社会基础;患病率;危险因素;影响;识别;预防和管理;环境和技术;卫生服务;健康和社会政策。本文描述了为系统评价制定的方法。
中央协调小组(CCG)负责制定方法。这包括开发搜索策略和关键词、文章选择流程、质量评估工具以及结果综合指南。每个审查都由两个该内容领域的专家进行,CCG 的方法学家和统计学家提供协助。
对一个没有普遍接受定义的概念进行一系列涉及多个学科的系统文献综述,提出了一些概念和方法学挑战。最重要的概念挑战是确定哪些文献属于虚弱文献。方法学挑战源于我们为从不同研究领域的文献中构建一致的方法学而设定的目标。从一开始,某些方法学准则就被认为是确保所有审查有效性的必要条件。尽管如此,在应用所提出的方法时允许灵活性以捕捉特定领域的虚弱研究的本质也同样重要。
这些综述的结果使我们能够确定虚弱现状,并促进学科之间的合作。在涉及多个学科的健康科学中进行系统文献综述是促进跨学科合作和更全面理解健康的一种机制。这一倡议强调了在进行多学科系统评价时进一步发展方法学的必要性。