MacLure Katie, Paudyal Vibhu, Stewart Derek
School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, AB10 7GJ, Scotland, UK.
Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 Jun;38(3):685-94. doi: 10.1007/s11096-016-0288-3. Epub 2016 Apr 5.
Introduction Professor Archibald Cochrane, after whom the Cochrane Collaboration is named, was influential in promoting evidence-based clinical practice. He called for "relevant, valid research" to underpin all aspects of healthcare. Systematic reviews of the literature are regarded as a high quality source of cumulative evidence but it is unclear how truly systematic they, or other review articles, are or 'how systematic is systematic?' Today's evidence-based review industry is a burgeoning mix of specialist terminology, collaborations and foundations, databases, portals, handbooks, tools, criteria and training courses. Aim of the review This study aims to identify uses and types of reviews, key issues in planning, conducting, reporting and critiquing reviews, and factors which limit claims to be systematic. Method A rapid review of review articles published in IJCP. Results This rapid review identified 17 review articles published in IJCP between 2010 and 2015 inclusive. It explored the use of different types of review article, the variation and widely available range of guidelines, checklists and criteria which, through systematic application, aim to promote best practice. It also identified common pitfalls in endeavouring to conduct reviews of the literature systematically. Discussion Although a limited set of IJCP reviews were identified, there is clear evidence of the variation in adoption and application of systematic methods. The burgeoning evidence industry offers the tools and guidelines required to conduct systematic reviews, and other types of review, systematically. This rapid review was limited to the database of one journal over a period of 6 years. Although this review was conducted systematically, it is not presented as a systematic review. Conclusion As a research community we have yet to fully engage with readily available guidelines and tools which would help to avoid the common pitfalls. Therefore the question remains, of not just IJCP but potentially all published reviews, 'how systematic is systematic?'
引言
以其名字命名Cochrane协作网的阿奇博尔德·科克伦教授，在推动循证临床实践方面颇具影响力。他呼吁用“相关、有效的研究”来支撑医疗保健的各个方面。文献系统评价被视为高质量的累积证据来源，但尚不清楚它们或其他综述文章究竟有多系统，或者说“系统到何种程度才算系统？”当今的循证综述行业是一个迅速发展的组合体，包含专业术语、协作与基金会、数据库、门户网站、手册、工具、标准以及培训课程。
综述目的
本研究旨在确定综述的用途和类型、规划、开展、报告和评判综述中的关键问题，以及限制系统宣称的因素。
方法
对发表于《国际临床实践杂志》（IJCP）的综述文章进行快速回顾。
结果
此次快速回顾确定了2010年至2015年（含）期间发表于IJCP的17篇综述文章。它探讨了不同类型综述文章的使用情况，以及旨在促进最佳实践的指南、清单和标准的差异及广泛可用性范围，这些通过系统应用来实现。它还确定了在试图系统地进行文献综述时常见的陷阱。
讨论
尽管仅识别出了IJCP的有限数量的综述，但有明确证据表明系统方法在采用和应用方面存在差异。蓬勃发展的循证行业提供了系统开展系统评价及其他类型综述所需的工具和指南。此次快速回顾仅限于一本期刊在6年期间的数据库。尽管此次回顾是系统进行的，但并未作为系统评价呈现。
结论
作为一个研究群体，我们尚未充分利用那些有助于避免常见陷阱的现成指南和工具。因此，问题依然存在，不仅针对IJCP，可能还针对所有已发表的综述，即“系统到何种程度才算系统？”
