School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Birmingham, Muirhead Tower, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 1;6(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0548-x.
There is an increasing body of research documenting flaws in many published systematic reviews' methodological and reporting conduct. When good systematic review practice is questioned, attention is rarely turned to the composition of the team that conducted the systematic review. This commentary highlights a number of relevant articles indicating how the composition of the review team could jeopardise the integrity of the systematic review study and its conclusions. Key biases require closer attention such as sponsorship bias and researcher allegiance, but there may also be less obvious affiliations in teams conducting secondary evidence-syntheses. The importance of transparency and disclosure are now firmly on the agenda for clinical trials and primary research, but the meta-biases that systematic reviews may be at risk from now require further scrutiny.
越来越多的研究文献记录了许多已发表的系统评价在方法学和报告方面存在缺陷。当质疑系统评价实践是否良好时，很少有人关注进行系统评价的团队的组成。本评论强调了一些相关文章，指出了审查团队的组成如何危及系统评价研究及其结论的完整性。需要更加关注关键偏见，例如赞助偏见和研究人员的忠诚，但在进行二次证据综合的团队中也可能存在不太明显的关联。透明度和披露的重要性现在已成为临床试验和基础研究的首要议题，但系统评价可能面临的元偏倚现在需要进一步审查。
