Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, The Netherlands; Department of Orthodontics, Academisch Centrum Tandheelkunde Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, Amsterdam 1081 LA, The Netherlands; Private Practice of Orthodontics, Milan, Italy.
Private Practice of Orthodontics, Milan, Italy.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Nov;115:64-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.001. Epub 2019 Jul 8.
The objective of the study was to assess the prevalence, the reporting quality, the need, and the consequences of contacting of authors by Cochrane reviewers to obtain additional information for their reviews.
Cross-sectional study and survey on all new Cochrane intervention reviews published between January 1, 2016 and January 31, 2017.
The cross-sectional study found that reviewers had contacted or had tried to contact studies to obtain additional information in 73.4% (234/319) of reviews but reported poorly on the methods, outcomes, and consequences of this procedure. Most eligible studies in the reviews were poorly reported, but few reviewers 21.2% (65/306) reported that they had contacted these studies. The survey showed that risk of bias scores, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation scores, the summary primary or secondary outcomes, and the summary effect size of the primary outcome of the review were changed as a consequence of contacting of authors. Thirty-five of one hundred and thirty (26.9%) reviews scored opposite outcomes for the same question in the cross-sectional study compared with the survey.
Our findings on contacting of authors by Cochrane reviewers showed relevant shortcomings in the current standards and transparency of Cochrane reviews. These shortcomings can compromise the validity and reproducibility of these reviews and affect a wide audience.
本研究旨在评估 Cochrane 评论员联系作者以获取其评论所需的额外信息的情况，包括这种联系的发生率、报告质量、必要性和后果。
本研究为横断面研究和调查，对 2016 年 1 月 1 日至 2017 年 1 月 31 日发表的所有新的 Cochrane 干预性评论进行了评估。
横断面研究发现，73.4%（234/319）的评论审查员曾联系或试图联系研究以获取额外信息，但对该程序的方法、结果和后果的报告较差。评论中大多数符合条件的研究报告质量较差，但只有 21.2%（65/306）的审查员报告称已联系过这些研究。调查显示，联系作者后，评论的偏倚风险评分、推荐评估、发展和评估评分、主要或次要结局的总结以及主要结局的总结效应大小均发生了变化。在横断面研究中，130 篇评论中有 35 篇（26.9%）对同一问题的评分结果与调查结果相反。
我们对 Cochrane 评论员联系作者的研究结果表明，目前 Cochrane 评论的标准和透明度存在相关缺陷。这些缺陷可能会影响这些评论的有效性和可重复性，并影响广大受众。
