Institute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology, Julius Kühn-Institut , Quedlinburg , Germany.
Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton , Southampton , UK.
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2015 Aug 12;3:113. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00113. eCollection 2015.
Systematic reviews represent powerful tools to identify, collect, synthesize, and evaluate primary research data on specific research questions in a highly standardized and reproducible manner. They enable the defensible synthesis of outcomes by increasing precision and minimizing bias whilst ensuring transparency of the methods used. This makes them especially valuable to inform evidence-based risk analysis and decision making in various topics and research disciplines. Although seen as a "gold standard" for synthesizing primary research data, systematic reviews are not without limitations as they are often cost, labor and time intensive and the utility of synthesis outcomes depends upon the availability of sufficient and robust primary research data. In this paper, we (1) consider the added value systematic reviews could provide when synthesizing primary research data on genetically modified organisms (GMO) and (2) critically assess the adequacy and feasibility of systematic review for collating and analyzing data on potential impacts of GMOs in order to better inform specific steps within GMO risk assessment and risk management. The regulatory framework of the EU is used as an example, although the issues we discuss are likely to be more widely applicable.
系统评价是一种强大的工具，可用于以高度标准化和可重复的方式识别、收集、综合和评估特定研究问题的原始研究数据。它们通过提高精度和最小化偏差来实现结果的合理综合，同时确保所用方法的透明度。这使得它们特别有价值，可以为各种主题和研究学科中的循证风险分析和决策提供信息。尽管系统评价被视为综合原始研究数据的“金标准”，但它们并非没有局限性，因为它们通常成本高、劳动强度大且耗时，并且综合结果的实用性取决于是否有足够和可靠的原始研究数据。在本文中，我们（1）考虑了在综合与转基因生物（GMO）相关的原始研究数据时系统评价可以提供的附加值，（2）批判性地评估了系统评价在整理和分析 GMO 潜在影响数据方面的充分性和可行性，以便更好地为 GMO 风险评估和风险管理的具体步骤提供信息。我们使用欧盟的监管框架作为示例，尽管我们讨论的问题可能更具普遍性。
