Mistra EviEM, Stockholm Environment Institute, Box 24218, 104 51 Stockholm, Sweden.
Mistra EviEM, Stockholm Environment Institute, Box 24218, 104 51 Stockholm, Sweden.
Environ Int. 2017 Feb;99:356-360. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.020. Epub 2016 Dec 29.
Systematic reviews are becoming a widely accepted gold standard in evidence synthesis for evidence-based and -informed policy and practice. Many organisations exist to coordinate the registration, conduct and publication of systematic reviews across a range of disciplines, including medicine, international development, and environmental management and biodiversity conservation. As the term 'systematic review' becomes more widely recognised, however, there is a risk that stakeholders may have only partial understanding of the rigorous methods required to produce a reliable systematic review. Here, we highlight one such example from the field of education and international development, where a World Bank report claimed to 'systematically review' six 'systematic reviews' that found divergent results. We critically appraise the six included reviews and the World Bank report itself using an a priori quality assessment tool. Our analysis shows that none of the six included reviews are classifiable as systematic reviews according to widely accepted criteria. We also find that the World Bank report failed to use true systematic review methods to synthesise the included reviews findings. Our study demonstrates the risks associated with partial understanding of the added value associated with systematic reviews and highlights a need for improved awareness of what systematic reviews are.
系统评价作为循证决策和实践的黄金标准，在证据综合方面已被广泛认可。许多组织致力于协调注册、开展和发表涵盖医学、国际发展、环境管理和生物多样性保护等多个学科领域的系统评价。然而，随着“系统评价”一词的广泛认可，利益相关者可能仅对生成可靠系统评价所需的严格方法有部分了解。在这里，我们从教育和国际发展领域中举一个例子，世界银行的一份报告声称“系统地综述”了六项发现结果存在差异的“系统评价”。我们使用预先确定的质量评估工具对纳入的六项评价和世界银行报告本身进行了批判性评估。我们的分析表明，根据广泛接受的标准，纳入的六项评价中没有一项可归类为系统评价。我们还发现，世界银行报告未能使用真正的系统评价方法来综合纳入的评价结果。我们的研究表明，对系统评价的附加值的部分理解所带来的风险，并强调需要提高对系统评价的认识。
