团队在进行系统评价中的影响。
The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review.
机构信息
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.
出版信息
Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 1;6(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0548-x.
Abstract
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.
摘要
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。
相似文献
1
The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review.团队在进行系统评价中的影响。
Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 1;6(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0548-x.
2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
3
The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review.系统评价的问题：一项实时的系统评价。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Apr;156:30-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.011. Epub 2023 Feb 14.
4
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区，服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中，叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
5
Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.在医疗保健干预随机试验的系统评价中，因对结果和分析进行选择性纳入及报告而产生的偏倚。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 1;2014(10):MR000035. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2.
6
Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach.系统评价的总结：伞状综述方法的方法学发展、实施与报告
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):132-40. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055.
7
How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses.如何进行系统评价：进行和报告叙述性综述、荟萃分析和荟萃综合的最佳实践指南。
Annu Rev Psychol. 2019 Jan 4;70:747-770. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803. Epub 2018 Aug 8.
8
Principles of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.系统评价和荟萃分析原则。
Methods Mol Biol. 2022;2345:1-15. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_1.
9
Association between author conflicts of interest and industry-sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction.作者利益冲突与行业赞助与系统评价结局偏好之间的关联，这些系统评价主要关注治疗勃起功能障碍的方法。
Andrology. 2021 Nov;9(6):1819-1827. doi: 10.1111/andr.13064. Epub 2021 Jul 10.
10
The contribution of systematic reviews to the practice of pediatric nephrology.系统评价对儿科肾脏病实践的贡献。
Pediatr Nephrol. 2013 Feb;28(2):197-206. doi: 10.1007/s00467-012-2155-3. Epub 2012 Apr 4.
引用本文的文献
1
Ethical integrity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: challenges, pitfalls, and best practices in ophthalmology.系统评价与荟萃分析中的伦理诚信：眼科领域的挑战、陷阱及最佳实践
Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2025 Jul 31;14(2):40-49. doi: 10.51329/mehdiophthal1522. eCollection 2025 Summer.
2
Using GPT-4 for Title and Abstract Screening in a Literature Review of Public Policies: A Feasibility Study.在公共政策文献综述中使用GPT-4进行标题和摘要筛选：一项可行性研究。
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2025 May 22;3(3):e70031. doi: 10.1002/cesm.70031. eCollection 2025 May.
3
Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams.期刊作者指南中关于系统评价的指导：给编辑团队的发现与建议
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 Mar 31;2(4):e12050. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12050. eCollection 2024 Apr.
4
Developing an Annual Review of the Literature.撰写文献年度综述。
J CME. 2024 Dec 25;14(1):2444726. doi: 10.1080/28338073.2024.2444726. eCollection 2025.
5
The Efficacy of Psychosocial Interventions in Minimising the Harm Caused to Affected Others of Problem Gambling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.心理社会干预对减少问题赌博对受影响他人造成的伤害的疗效：系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Gambl Stud. 2023 Dec;39(4):1927-1958. doi: 10.1007/s10899-023-10220-3. Epub 2023 Jun 9.
6
Involvement of information specialists and statisticians in systematic reviews.系统评价中信息专家和统计学家的参与。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023 Apr 25;39(1):e22. doi: 10.1017/S026646232300020X.
7
How to Conduct a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Clinicians.如何进行系统评价和荟萃分析：临床医生指南。
Respir Care. 2023 Sep;68(9):1295-1308. doi: 10.4187/respcare.10971. Epub 2023 Apr 18.
8
Communication skills training for improving the communicative abilities of student social workers.为提高学生社会工作者的沟通能力而进行的沟通技巧培训。
Campbell Syst Rev. 2023 Feb 23;19(1):e1309. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1309. eCollection 2023 Mar.
9
Machine learning computational tools to assist the performance of systematic reviews: A mapping review.机器学习计算工具辅助系统评价的实施：一项映射综述。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Dec 16;22(1):322. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01805-4.
10
The conduct and reporting of qualitative evidence syntheses in health and social care guidelines: a content analysis.卫生和社会保健指南中定性证据综合的实施和报告：内容分析。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Oct 12;22(1):267. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01743-1.
本文引用的文献
1
Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.识别评估系统评价方法学和报告质量的方法：一项描述性研究。
Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 19;6(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0507-6.
2
Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry.利用PROSPERO注册库的数据，分析对医学干预措施进行系统评价所需的时间和人员。
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 27;7(2):e012545. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545.
3
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on psoriasis: role of funding sources, conflict of interest and bibliometric indices as predictors of methodological quality.系统评价和荟萃分析在银屑病中的作用：资金来源、利益冲突和文献计量指标作为方法学质量预测因素。
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Jun;176(6):1633-1644. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15380. Epub 2017 May 19.
4
Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.烧伤护理管理系统评价的方法学质量和报告标准较差。
Int Wound J. 2017 Oct;14(5):754-763. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12692. Epub 2016 Dec 18.
5
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study.生物医学研究系统评价的流行病学及报告特征：一项横断面研究
PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028. eCollection 2016 May.
6
Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study.因试验效应估计值的选择性纳入导致的Meta分析偏倚调查：实证研究
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 27;6(4):e011863. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011863.
7
Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review.心理治疗综述中的利益冲突与倾向性报道：一项系统综述
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 26;6(4):e010606. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010606.
8
How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors.系统评价的作者如何处理原始研究中的研究不当行为和 misconduct？对系统评价及其作者的横断面分析。 （注：这里“misconduct”常见释义为“不当行为”，但在医学语境中也可根据具体情况灵活处理，比如“行为不检点”等，此处保留英文以便更准确理解原文确切所指范围。）
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 2;6(3):e010442. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010442.
9
Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature.生物医学文献中的可重复研究实践与透明度
PLoS Biol. 2016 Jan 4;14(1):e1002333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333. eCollection 2016 Jan.
10
Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interests in Interventions to Improve Child Psychosocial Health: A Cross-Sectional Study.改善儿童心理社会健康干预措施中财务利益冲突的披露：一项横断面研究。
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 25;10(11):e0142803. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142803. eCollection 2015.
Zotero 插件