School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, WC1H 0NR, UK.
F1000Res. 2020 Jul 6;9:678. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.24469.2. eCollection 2020.
Systematic reviews involve synthesis of research to inform decision making by clinicians, consumers, policy makers and researchers. While guidance for synthesis often focuses on meta-analysis, synthesis begins with specifying the 'PICO for each synthesis' (i.e. the criteria for deciding which populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes are eligible for each analysis). Synthesis may also involve the use of statistical methods other than meta-analysis (e.g. vote counting based on the direction of effect, presenting the range of effects, combining P values) augmented by visual display, tables and text-based summaries. This study examines these two aspects of synthesis. To identify and describe current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions in relation to: (i) approaches to grouping and definition of PICO characteristics for synthesis; and (ii) methods of summary and synthesis when meta-analysis is not used. We will randomly sample 100 systematic reviews of the quantitative effects of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 and indexed in the databases. Two authors will independently screen citations for eligibility. Two authors will confirm eligibility based on full text, then extract data for 20% of reviews on the specification and use of PICO for synthesis, and the presentation and synthesis methods used (e.g. statistical synthesis methods, tabulation, visual displays, structured summary). The remaining reviews will be confirmed as eligible and data extracted by a single author. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise the specification of methods and their use in practice. We will compare how clearly the PICO for synthesis is specified in reviews that primarily use meta-analysis and those that do not. This study will provide an understanding of current practice in two important aspects of the synthesis process, enabling future research to test the feasibility and impact of different approaches.
系统评价涉及综合研究,以为临床医生、消费者、政策制定者和研究人员提供决策信息。虽然综合指导通常侧重于荟萃分析,但综合首先要指定每个综合的“PICO”(即决定哪些人群、干预措施、对照和结局有资格进行每项分析的标准)。综合也可能涉及使用除荟萃分析以外的统计方法(例如,根据效果方向进行投票计数,呈现效果范围,合并 P 值),并辅以可视化显示、表格和基于文本的摘要。本研究考察了综合的这两个方面。为了确定和描述与以下方面相关的健康干预措施系统评价的当前实践:(i)针对综合的 PICO 特征的分组和定义方法;(ii)当不使用荟萃分析时,进行总结和综合的方法。我们将随机抽取 2018 年在公共卫生和卫生系统干预措施的定量效果方面发表并在数据库中索引的 100 篇系统评价进行抽样。两位作者将独立筛选引文的资格。两位作者将根据全文确认资格,然后提取 20%的综述关于 PICO 用于综合的规定和使用以及所使用的呈现和综合方法(例如,统计综合方法、制表、可视化显示、结构化摘要)的数据。其余的综述将由一位作者确认有资格并提取数据。我们将使用描述性统计来总结方法的规定及其在实践中的使用。我们将比较主要使用荟萃分析和不使用荟萃分析的综述中,合成用 PICO 的规定是否明确。本研究将了解综合过程中两个重要方面的当前实践,从而为未来研究测试不同方法的可行性和影响提供依据。