Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
BMC Med. 2011 Mar 30;9:31. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-31.
A study conducted by Lai and colleagues, published this week in BMC Medicine, suggests that more guidance might be required for interpreting systematic review (SR) results. In the study by Lai and colleagues, positive (or favorable) results were influential in changing participants' prior beliefs about the interventions presented in the systematic review. Other studies have examined the relationship between favorable systematic review results and the publication of systematic reviews. An international registry may decrease the number of unpublished systematic reviews and will hopefully decrease redundancy, increase transparency, and increase collaboration within the SR community. In addition, using guidance from the Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA: http://www.prisma-statement.org/) Statement and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/) approach can also be used to improve the interpretation of systematic reviews. In this commentary, we highlight important methodological issues related to the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and also present our own guidance on interpreting systematic reviews. Please see Research article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/30/.
莱伊及其同事本周在《BMC 医学》杂志上发表的一项研究表明，对于系统评价（SR）结果的解释可能需要更多的指导。在莱伊及其同事的研究中，阳性（或有利）结果对改变参与者对系统评价中呈现的干预措施的先入之见有影响。其他研究已经检验了有利的系统评价结果与系统评价发表之间的关系。一个国际注册处可能会减少未发表的系统评价的数量，并有望减少冗余，提高透明度，并增加 SR 社区内的合作。此外，还可以使用来自系统评价和荟萃分析的首选项目（PRISMA：http://www.prisma-statement.org/）声明和推荐评估、制定和评估（GRADE：http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/）方法的指导来改善系统评价的解释。在这篇评论中，我们强调了与系统评价的实施和报告相关的重要方法学问题，并提出了我们自己对系统评价的解释指导。请参见研究文章：http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/30/。
