Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
School of Public Health, Management Policy and Community Health, The University of Texas at El Paso, USA.
J Health Psychol. 2021 Jul;26(8):1126-1131. doi: 10.1177/1359105319869800. Epub 2019 Aug 24.
A systematic review is a valuable and influential research method that aims to identify and synthesize all literature relevant to the research question at hand. A well-conducted systematic review benefits the scientific community by providing a summary of all the existing evidence as well as generating new hypotheses and highlighting gaps in the literature. However, when a systematic review does not adhere to the recommended guidelines, it may introduce selection bias and generate false conclusions. Here, we present a commentary on a systematic review by the scholars Morley-Hewitt and Owen titled '' that included nine peer-reviewed articles but missed at least eight other peer-reviewed articles that aligned with their study aim, and therefore introduced selection bias in the review. To complete the missing piece, we provide a short summary of these additional articles and describe how they align with this systematic review.
系统评价是一种有价值且有影响力的研究方法,旨在确定并综合手头研究问题相关的所有文献。一项精心进行的系统评价通过提供所有现有证据的摘要以及生成新的假设和突出文献中的空白来使科学界受益。然而,当系统评价不遵循推荐的指南时,它可能会引入选择偏差并产生错误的结论。在这里,我们对 Morley-Hewitt 和 Owen 学者题为“ ”的系统评价发表评论,该评价包括九篇同行评议文章,但至少遗漏了另外八篇与他们的研究目的相符的同行评议文章,因此在综述中引入了选择偏差。为了完成缺失的部分,我们提供了这些额外文章的简短摘要,并描述了它们如何与该系统评价相一致。