对 2000 年至 2011 年发表的综述概述进行描述性分析。

A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011.

机构信息

Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49667. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049667. Epub 2012 Nov 15.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Overviews of systematic reviews compile data from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) and are a new method of evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the methodological approaches in overviews of interventions.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

METHODS

We searched 4 databases from 2000 to July 2011; we handsearched Evidence-based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal. We defined an overview as a study that: stated a clear objective; examined an intervention; used explicit methods to identify SRs; collected and synthesized outcome data from the SRs; and intended to include only SRs. We did not restrict inclusion by population characteristics (e.g., adult or children only). Two researchers independently screened studies and applied eligibility criteria. One researcher extracted data with verification by a second. We conducted a descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

From 2,245 citations, 75 overviews were included. The number of overviews increased from 1 in 2000 to 14 in 2010. The interventions were pharmacological (n = 20, 26.7%), non-pharmacological (n = 26, 34.7%), or both (n = 29, 38.7%). Inclusion criteria were clearly stated in 65 overviews. Thirty-three (44%) overviews searched at least 2 databases. The majority reported the years and databases searched (n = 46, 61%), and provided key words (n = 58, 77%). Thirty-nine (52%) overviews included Cochrane SRs only. Two reviewers independently screened and completed full text review in 29 overviews (39%). Methods of data extraction were reported in 45 (60%). Information on quality of individual studies was extracted from the original SRs in 27 (36%) overviews. Quality assessment of the SRs was performed in 28 (37%) overviews; at least 9 different tools were used. Quality of the body of evidence was assessed in 13 (17%) overviews. Most overviews provided a narrative or descriptive analysis of the included SRs. One overview conducted indirect analyses and the other conducted mixed treatment comparisons. Publication bias was discussed in 18 (24%) overviews.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows considerable variation in the methods used for overviews. There is a need for methodological rigor and consistency in overviews, as well as empirical evidence to support the methods employed.

摘要

背景

系统评价概述从多个系统评价(SRs)中编译数据,是一种新的证据综合方法。

目的

描述干预措施概述中的方法学方法。

设计

描述性研究。

方法

我们从 2000 年至 2011 年 7 月检索了 4 个数据库;我们手动检索了循证儿科学: Cochrane 综述杂志。我们将概述定义为:明确目标的研究;检查干预措施;使用明确的方法识别系统评价;从系统评价中收集和综合结果数据;并打算仅包括系统评价。我们没有根据人口特征(例如,仅成人或儿童)来限制纳入。两名研究人员独立筛选研究并应用纳入标准。一名研究人员提取数据,另一名研究人员进行验证。我们进行了描述性分析。

结果

从 2245 条引文中,纳入了 75 篇概述。概述的数量从 2000 年的 1 篇增加到 2010 年的 14 篇。干预措施包括药理学干预(n=20,26.7%)、非药理学干预(n=26,34.7%)或两者兼有(n=29,38.7%)。65 篇概述中明确规定了纳入标准。33 篇(44%)概述至少搜索了 2 个数据库。大多数概述报告了搜索的年份和数据库(n=46,61%),并提供了关键词(n=58,77%)。39 篇(52%)概述仅纳入了 Cochrane 系统评价。两名评审员独立筛选并完成了 29 篇概述(39%)的全文审查。45 篇(60%)概述报告了数据提取方法。27 篇概述(36%)从原始系统评价中提取了单个研究的质量信息。28 篇概述(37%)对系统评价进行了质量评估;使用了至少 9 种不同的工具。13 篇概述(17%)评估了证据体的质量。大多数概述对纳入的系统评价进行了叙述性或描述性分析。一篇概述进行了间接分析,另一篇概述进行了混合治疗比较。18 篇概述(24%)讨论了发表偏倚。

结论

本研究表明,概述中使用的方法存在很大差异。需要在概述中使用严格的方法和一致性,并提供经验证据来支持所使用的方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9fb3/3499476/b2db4da0f3ec/pone.0049667.g001.jpg

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