INSERM, UMR1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS Team, Paris, France; Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France.
INSERM, UMR1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS Team, Paris, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris, France; Direction de la recherche Clinique, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jul;123:135-142. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.024. Epub 2020 Mar 4.
This article presents why the planning, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions are suboptimal.
We present an overview of the limitations of the current system of evidence synthesis for therapeutic interventions.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are a cornerstone of health care decisions. However, despite the increasing a number of published systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions, the current evidence synthesis ecosystem is not properly addressing stakeholders' needs. The current production process leads to a series of disparate systematic reviews because of erratic and inefficient planning with a process that is not always comprehensive and is prone to bias. Evidence synthesis depends on the quality of primary research, so primary research that is not available is biased or selectively reported raises important concerns. Moreover, the lack of interactions between the community of primary research producers and systematic reviewers impedes the optimal use of data. The context has considerably evolved, with ongoing research innovations, a new medical approach with the end of the one-size-fits-all approach, more available data, and new patient expectations. All these changes must be introduced into the future evidence ecosystem.
Dramatic changes are needed to enable this future ecosystem to become user driven and user oriented and more useful for decision-making.
本文介绍了治疗干预措施的系统评价和荟萃分析在规划、实施和报告方面为何不尽如人意。
我们概述了当前治疗干预措施证据综合系统的局限性。
系统评价和荟萃分析是医疗决策的基石。然而,尽管发表了越来越多的治疗干预措施的系统评价,但当前的证据综合生态系统并没有很好地满足利益相关者的需求。当前的生产过程导致了一系列不相关的系统评价,因为规划不稳定且效率低下,而且过程并不总是全面的,容易出现偏差。证据综合取决于原始研究的质量,因此,如果没有可用的原始研究,则存在偏差或选择性报告的问题会引起严重关注。此外,初级研究生产者和系统评价者之间缺乏互动,阻碍了数据的最佳利用。背景发生了重大变化,研究创新不断,新的医疗方法摒弃了一刀切的方法,更多的数据和新的患者期望。所有这些变化都必须引入到未来的证据生态系统中。
需要进行重大变革,以使未来的生态系统能够实现用户驱动和以用户为导向,并更有助于决策制定。