Suppr超能文献

国际合作研究努力以开发非 Cochrane 系统评价的演变。

Evolution of international collaborative research efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews.

机构信息

Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía (AETSA), Sevilla, Spain.

Instituto Maimonides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (IMIBIC)/Reina Sofía University Hospital/University of Córdoba, Cordoba, Spain.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2019 Feb 27;14(2):e0211919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211919. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

This research-on-research study describes efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) by analyzing demographical and time-course collaborations between international institutions using protocols registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) or published in scientific journals. We have published an a priori protocol to develop this study. Protocols published in scientific journals were searched using the MEDLINE and Embase databases; the query terms "Systematic review" [Title] AND "protocol" [Title] were searched from February 2011 to December 2017. Protocols registered at PROSPERO during the same period were obtained by web scraping all non-Cochrane records with a Python script. After excluding protocols that had a fulfillment or duplication rate of less than 90%, they were classified as published "only in PROSPERO", "only in journals", or in "journals and PROSPERO". Results of data and metadata extraction using text mining processes were curated by two reviewers. These Datasets and R scripts are freely available to facilitate reproducibility. We obtained 20,814 protocols of non-Cochrane SRs. While "unique protocols" by reviewers' institutions from 60 countries were the most frequent, a median of 6 (2-150) institutions from 130 different countries were involved in the preparation of "collaborative protocols". The highest Ranked countries involved in overall protocol production were the UK, the U.S., Australia, Brazil, China, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. Most protocols were registered only in PROSPERO. However, the number of protocols published in scientific journals (924) or in both PROSPERO and journals (807) has increased over the last three years. Syst Rev and BMJ Open published more than half of the total protocols. While the more productive countries were involved in "unique" and "collaborative protocols", less productive countries only participated in "collaborative protocols" that were mainly published in PROSPERO. Our results suggest that, although most countries were involved in solitary production of protocols for non-Cochrane SRs during the study period, it would be useful to develop new strategies to promote international collaborations, especially with less productive countries.

摘要

本研究旨在通过分析国际机构之间在人口统计学和时间进程方面的合作,开发非 Cochrane 系统评价(SR)。我们已经发布了一份事先制定的研究方案。使用 MEDLINE 和 Embase 数据库检索发表在科学期刊上的方案,使用的查询词为“Systematic review”[标题] AND “protocol”[标题],检索时间为 2011 年 2 月至 2017 年 12 月。在同一时期,通过使用 Python 脚本对 PROSPERO 中所有非 Cochrane 记录进行网络抓取,获取 PROSPERO 中注册的方案。在排除完成率或重复率低于 90%的方案后,将其分为仅在 PROSPERO 中发表、仅在期刊中发表或在期刊和 PROSPERO 中发表的方案。使用文本挖掘过程提取数据和元数据的结果由两名评审员进行整理。这些数据集和 R 脚本可免费获取,以促进可重复性。我们获得了 20814 项非 Cochrane SR 方案。虽然来自 60 个国家的评审员机构的“独特方案”最为常见,但在“协作方案”的准备过程中,涉及来自 130 个不同国家的 6(2-150)个机构。在整体方案制作中排名最高的国家包括英国、美国、澳大利亚、巴西、中国、加拿大、荷兰、德国和意大利。大多数方案仅在 PROSPERO 中注册。然而,过去三年,在科学期刊上发表的方案数量(924 项)或同时在 PROSPERO 和期刊上发表的方案数量(807 项)有所增加。Syst Rev 和 BMJ Open 发表了超过一半的总方案。虽然更具生产力的国家参与了“独特”和“协作”方案,但生产力较低的国家仅参与了主要在 PROSPERO 上发表的“协作”方案。我们的研究结果表明,尽管在研究期间大多数国家都独自参与了非 Cochrane SR 方案的制作,但制定新的策略以促进国际合作,特别是与生产力较低的国家合作,将是有用的。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2015/6392271/651737215750/pone.0211919.g001.jpg

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