Coarasa Jorge, Das Jishnu, Gummerson Elizabeth, Bitton Asaf
World Bank, KK Birla Marg, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi, India, 110003.
World Bank, MSN MC3-311, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA.
Global Health. 2017 Apr 12;13(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12992-017-0246-4.
Systematic reviews are powerful tools for summarizing vast amounts of data in controversial areas; but their utility is limited by methodological choices and assumptions. Two systematic reviews of literature on the quality of private sector primary care in low and middle income countries (LMIC), published in the same journal within a year, reached conflicting conclusions. The difference in findings reflects different review methodologies, but more importantly, a weak underlying body of literature. A detailed examination of the literature cited in both reviews shows that only one of the underlying studies met the gold standard for methodological robustness. Given the current policy momentum on universal health coverage and primary health care reform across the globe, there is an urgent need for high quality empirical evidence on the quality of private versus public sector primary health care in LMIC.
系统评价是在有争议领域总结大量数据的有力工具；但其效用受到方法选择和假设的限制。一年内发表在同一期刊上的两篇关于低收入和中等收入国家（LMIC）私营部门初级保健质量的文献系统评价得出了相互矛盾的结论。研究结果的差异反映了不同的评价方法，但更重要的是，基础文献薄弱。对两篇评价中引用的文献进行详细审查发现，只有一项基础研究达到了方法稳健性的金标准。鉴于目前全球范围内普及健康覆盖和初级卫生保健改革的政策势头，迫切需要关于LMIC私营部门与公共部门初级卫生保健质量的高质量实证证据。
