系统评价中观察性研究因果语言使用的系统调查：研究方案。

Systematic survey of the causal language use in systematic reviews of observational studies: a study protocol.

机构信息

Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju, The Republic of Korea

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 28;10(7):e038571. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038571.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038571

PMID:32723747

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7389485/

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Sometimes, observational studies may provide important evidence that allow inferences of causality between exposure and outcome (although on most occasions only low certainty evidence). Authors, frequently and perhaps usually at the behest of the journals to which they are submitting, avoid using causal language when addressing evidence from observational studies. This is true even when the issue of interest is the causal effect of an intervention or exposure. Clarity of thinking and appropriateness of inferences may be enhanced through the use of language that reflects the issue under consideration. The objectives of this study are to systematically evaluate the extent and nature of causal language use in systematic reviews of observational studies and to relate that to the actual intent of the investigation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic survey of systematic reviews of observational studies addressing modifiable exposures and their possible impact on patient-important outcomes. We will randomly select 200 reviews published in 2019, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by use and non-use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Teams of two reviewers will independently assess study eligibility and extract data using a standardised data extraction forms, with resolution of disagreement by discussion and, if necessary, by third party adjudication. Through examining the inferences, they make in their papers' discussion, we will evaluate whether the authors' intent was to address causation or association. We will summarise the use of causal language in the study title, abstract, study question and results using descriptive statistics. Finally, we will assess whether the language used is consistent with the intention of the authors. We will determine whether results in reviews that did or did not use GRADE differ.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval for this study is not required. We will disseminate the results through publication in a peer-reviewed journals.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (osf.io/vh8yx).

摘要

简介

有时，观察性研究可能提供重要证据，允许对暴露与结果之间的因果关系进行推断（尽管在大多数情况下，只有低确定性证据）。作者经常（也许通常是应他们提交的期刊的要求）在讨论观察性研究证据时避免使用因果关系语言。即使关注的问题是干预或暴露的因果效应，也是如此。通过使用反映所考虑问题的语言，可以提高思维的清晰度和推理的适当性。本研究的目的是系统评估观察性研究系统评价中因果语言使用的程度和性质，并将其与研究的实际意图联系起来。

方法和分析

我们将对针对可改变暴露及其对患者重要结局可能影响的观察性研究进行系统调查。我们将随机选择 200 篇发表于 2019 年的综述，按照使用和不使用 Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation（GRADE）的 1:1 比例分层。两名评审员团队将独立评估研究的合格性，并使用标准化的数据提取表格提取数据，如果有分歧，则通过讨论解决，如果有必要，则由第三方裁决解决。通过检查他们在论文讨论中得出的推理，我们将评估作者的意图是否是解决因果关系或关联。我们将使用描述性统计数据总结研究标题、摘要、研究问题和结果中因果语言的使用情况。最后，我们将评估使用的语言是否与作者的意图一致。我们将确定使用或不使用 GRADE 的综述中的结果是否存在差异。