Siristatidis Charalampos, Karageorgiou Vasilios, Vogiatzi Paraskevi
Assisted Reproduction Unit, Second Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Aretaieion Hospital, 76 Vass Sofias, 11528 Athens, Greece.
2nd Department of Psychiatry, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon Hospital, 1 Rimini Street, 12642 Athens, Greece.
Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Jan 17;9(1):92. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9010092.
There are varied lessons to be learned regarding the current methodological approaches to women's health research. In the present scheme of growing medical literature and inflation of novel results claiming significance, the sheer amount of information can render evidence-based practice confusing. The factors that classically determined the impact of discoveries appear to be losing ground: citation count and publication rates, hierarchy in author lists according to contribution, and a journal's impact factor. Through a comprehensive literature search on the currently available data from theses, opinion, and original articles and reviews on this topic, we seek to present to clinicians a narrative synthesis of three crucial axes underlying the totality of the research production chain: (a) critical advances in research methodology, (b) the interplay of academy and industry in a trial conduct, and (c) review- and publication-associated developments. We also provide specific recommendations on the study design and conduct, reviewing the processes and dissemination of data and the conclusions and implementation of findings. Overall, clinicians and the public should be aware of the discourse behind the marketing of alleged breakthrough research. Still, multiple initiatives, such as patient review and strict, supervised literature synthesis, have become more widely accepted. The "bottom-up" approach of a wide dissemination of information to clinicians, together with practical incentives for stakeholders with competing interests to collaborate, promise to improve women's healthcare.
关于当前女性健康研究的方法论,有诸多经验教训可供汲取。在当前医学文献不断增加、新成果宣称具有重要意义的情况日益普遍的背景下,海量信息可能会使循证医学实践变得令人困惑。传统上决定研究发现影响力的因素似乎正在失势:引用次数、发表率、作者名单中按贡献排列的等级以及期刊的影响因子。通过对关于该主题的论文、观点文章、原创文章及综述中现有数据进行全面的文献检索,我们试图向临床医生呈现研究生产链整体所基于的三个关键轴的叙述性综合内容:(a)研究方法的重大进展,(b)学术界与产业界在试验开展中的相互作用,以及(c)与综述和发表相关的发展。我们还就研究设计与开展、数据的审查与传播以及研究结果的结论与实施提供具体建议。总体而言,临床医生和公众应了解所谓突破性研究背后的营销话语。尽管如此,诸如患者审查和严格的、有监督的文献综合等多项举措已被更广泛地接受。向临床医生广泛传播信息的“自下而上”方法,以及对具有竞争利益的利益相关者进行合作的实际激励措施,有望改善女性医疗保健。