Suppr超能文献

系统评价烟草控制:考科蓝与社区指南的不同方法,相似结果。

Systematic reviews on tobacco control from Cochrane and the Community Guide: different methods, similar findings.

机构信息

Department of Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;63(6):596-606. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.010. Epub 2010 Jan 13.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the methods and findings of systematic reviews (SRs) on common tobacco control interventions from two organizations: the Cochrane Collaboration ("Cochrane") and the US Task Force for Community Preventive Services ("the Guide").

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Literature review. We retrieved all reviews pertaining to tobacco control produced by the Cochrane and the Guide. We identified seven common topics and compared methods and findings of the retrieved reviews.

RESULTS

There was considerable variability in the designs of included studies and methods of data synthesis. On average, Cochrane identified more studies than did the Guide (Mean 43.7 vs. 19.0), with only limited overlap between sets of included studies. Most Cochrane reviews (71.4%) were synthesized narratively, whereas most Guide reviews (85.7%) were synthesized using a median of effect size. Despite these differences, findings of the reviews yielded substantial agreement.

CONCLUSION

Cochrane and the Guide conduct SRs on similar tobacco control-related topics differently. The SRs of the two organizations include overlapping, but nonidentical sets, of studies. Still, they usually reach similar conclusions. Identification of all pertinent original studies seems to be a weak point in the SR process. Policy makers should use reviews from both organizations in formulating tobacco control policy.

摘要

目的

比较来自两个组织的常见控烟干预措施系统评价(SRs)的方法和结果:Cochrane 协作组织(“Cochrane”)和美国社区预防服务工作组(“指南”)。

研究设计和设置

文献回顾。我们检索了 Cochrane 和指南中所有关于烟草控制的综述。我们确定了七个常见主题,并比较了检索到的综述的方法和结果。

结果

纳入研究的设计和数据综合方法存在很大差异。平均而言,Cochrane 比指南识别出更多的研究(平均 43.7 项与 19.0 项),但纳入研究的集合之间仅有有限的重叠。大多数 Cochrane 综述(71.4%)采用叙述性综合方法,而大多数指南综述(85.7%)则采用中位数效应大小综合方法。尽管存在这些差异,但综述的结果仍有很大的一致性。

结论

Cochrane 和指南以不同的方式对类似的与烟草控制相关的主题进行 SRs。这两个组织的 SR 包括重叠但不相同的研究集。尽管如此,它们通常得出相似的结论。确定所有相关的原始研究似乎是 SR 过程中的一个薄弱环节。政策制定者在制定烟草控制政策时应同时使用这两个组织的综述。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验