• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

有发表方案的系统评价与无发表方案的系统评价相比：付出更多努力，检索更陈旧。

Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search.

机构信息

Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.

Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Mar;95:102-110. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.005. Epub 2017 Dec 16.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.005
PMID:29258907
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To explore trends in published protocols of systematic reviews (SRs) and to analyze how SRs with published protocols differ from those without.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched PubMed up to December 31, 2016 to identify SR protocols. We also searched for the corresponding SR for each protocol published in 2012 and 2013 and matched this with an SR without published protocol by year and journal.

RESULTS

The number of protocols published increased from 42 in 2012 to 404 in 2016; 125 were published in 2012 and 2013. One-third of SRs remained unpublished after 3-5 years. We included 80 SRs with protocols and 80 controls. SRs with protocols reported their methods more comprehensively than their controls, but their median time from search to submission was longer (325 vs. 122 days; P < 0.001). Almost two-thirds of the SRs with protocols and about 10% of the controls could be found in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).

CONCLUSION

Time from search to submission was longer for SRs with published protocols, while at the same time SRs with published protocols were better elaborated and reported. As quality, transparency, and currency are cornerstones of SRs, we suggest critically discussing the current practice of publishing SR protocols.

摘要

目的

探索系统评价（SR）发表方案的趋势，并分析发表方案的 SR 与未发表方案的 SR 有何不同。

研究设计与设置

我们检索了 PubMed 数据库，截至 2016 年 12 月 31 日，以确定 SR 方案。我们还检索了 2012 年和 2013 年发表的每个方案对应的相应 SR，并按年份和期刊与未发表方案进行匹配。

结果

发表方案的数量从 2012 年的 42 篇增加到 2016 年的 404 篇；2012 年和 2013 年共发表了 125 篇。3-5 年后仍有三分之一的 SR 未发表。我们纳入了 80 篇有方案的 SR 和 80 篇对照研究。有方案的 SR 比对照研究更全面地报告了他们的方法，但从检索到提交的中位时间更长（325 天与 122 天；P < 0.001）。近三分之二的有方案的 SR 和大约 10%的对照研究可以在国际前瞻性系统评价登记处（PROSPERO）中找到。

结论

发表方案的 SR 从检索到提交的时间更长，而与此同时，发表方案的 SR 更详细地阐述和报告。由于质量、透明度和及时性是 SR 的基石，我们建议对当前发表 SR 方案的做法进行批判性讨论。

相似文献

1
Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search.有发表方案的系统评价与无发表方案的系统评价相比：付出更多努力，检索更陈旧。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Mar;95:102-110. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.005. Epub 2017 Dec 16.
2
Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained.非 Cochrane 系统评价及其发表方案的比较：差异经常发生，但很少解释。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jun;110:34-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.012. Epub 2019 Feb 26.
3
The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols.注册系统综述方案 10 年后的评分。
Syst Rev. 2022 Sep 5;11(1):191. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02053-9.
4
A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017.对 2012 年至 2017 年发表在开放同行评议期刊上的系统评价方案的特征和同行评议过程进行描述性分析。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Mar 13;19(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0698-8.
5
Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol.评价 PROSPERO 记录特征对非 Cochrane 系统评价最终发表的预测作用：一项meta 流行病学研究方案。
Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 9;7(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0709-6.
6
Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.评价系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目（PRISMA）声明及其扩展的采用和影响：范围综述。
Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 19;6(1):263. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8.
7
Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics.正畸学系统评价中的时间相关性、报告指南的引用以及文献检索的广度。
Eur J Orthod. 2015 Apr;37(2):183-7. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cju032. Epub 2014 Jul 22.
8
Evolution of international collaborative research efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews.国际合作研究努力以开发非 Cochrane 系统评价的演变。
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 27;14(2):e0211919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211919. eCollection 2019.
9
Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals.发表于皮肤病学杂志的系统评价中的报告质量。
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Jun;182(6):1469-1476. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18528. Epub 2019 Dec 5.
10
Statistical significance did not affect time to publication in non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a metaepidemiological study.非 Cochrane 系统评价中，统计学意义并不影响发表时间：一项荟萃流行病学研究。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Nov;115:25-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.015. Epub 2019 Jul 2.

引用本文的文献

1
Workforce outcomes among substance use peer supports and their contextual determinants: A scoping review protocol.物质使用同伴支持中的劳动力成果及其背景决定因素：一项范围综述方案。
PLoS One. 2024 Dec 9;19(12):e0311821. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311821. eCollection 2024.
2
Perspectives on systematic review protocol registration: a survey amongst stakeholders in the clinical research publication process.系统评价方案注册的观点：临床研究出版过程中利益相关者的调查。
Syst Rev. 2023 Dec 14;12(1):234. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02405-z.
3
How to make a systematic review live up to its name: perspectives from journal editors.
如何让系统评价名副其实：来自期刊编辑的观点
Ann Transl Med. 2023 Jun 30;11(9):325. doi: 10.21037/atm-22-6305. Epub 2023 May 10.
4
Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.系统评价最佳工具和实践指南 1.
J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2023;16(2):241-273. doi: 10.3233/PRM-230019.
5
Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.系统评价最佳工具和实践指南。
Syst Rev. 2023 Jun 8;12(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02255-9.
6
Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.系统评价最佳工具和实践指南。
BMC Infect Dis. 2023 Jun 8;23(1):383. doi: 10.1186/s12879-023-08304-x.
7
Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols.与系统评价方案注册成功发表相关的因素：对 397 项已注册方案的分析。
Syst Rev. 2023 Jun 2;12(1):93. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02210-8.
8
and health outcomes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.与健康结果：系统评价与荟萃分析概述
Front Nutr. 2023 Mar 28;10:1107750. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1107750. eCollection 2023.
9
Different Approaches to Appraising Systematic Reviews of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion Using AMSTAR 2 Tool: Cross-Sectional Study.使用 AMSTAR 2 工具评估促进身体活动的数字干预措施系统评价的不同方法：横断面研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 7;20(6):4689. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20064689.
10
The quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer for individualized decision-making: improved but further refinements are needed.用于个体化决策的关于I期非小细胞肺癌治疗的系统评价的质量：有所改善但仍需进一步完善。
J Thorac Dis. 2022 Oct;14(10):3660-3666. doi: 10.21037/jtd-22-1128.