EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Department of Social Science, University College London, London, England.
Africa Centre for Evidence, Faculty of the Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 15;8(1):170. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2.
This paper builds on a 2012 paper by the same authors which argued that the types and brands of systematic review do not sufficiently differentiate between the many dimensions of different review questions and review methods (Gough et al., Syst Rev 1:28, 2012). The current paper extends this argument by considering the dynamic contexts, or 'evidence ecosystems', within which reviews are undertaken; the fact that these ecosystems are constantly changing; and the relevance of this broader context for understanding 'dimensions of difference' in the unfolding development and refinement of review methods.The concept of an evidence ecosystem is used to consider particular issues within the three key dimensions of difference outlined in the 2012 paper of (1) review aims and approach, (2) structure and components of reviews, and (3) breadth, depth, and 'work done' by reviews.
本文是对同一作者在 2012 年发表的一篇论文的延伸,该论文认为系统评价的类型和品牌并没有充分区分不同评价问题和评价方法的多个维度(Gough 等人,Syst Rev 1:28, 2012)。本文通过考虑评价所依据的动态背景或“证据生态系统”,即这些生态系统不断变化的事实,以及更广泛背景对理解方法发展和完善过程中差异维度的相关性,扩展了这一论点。证据生态系统的概念用于考虑 2012 年论文中概述的三个关键差异维度内的特定问题:(1) 评价目的和方法,(2) 评价的结构和组成,以及 (3) 评价的广度、深度和“完成的工作”。