Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, United Kingdom.
ALTEX. 2021;38(3):513-522. doi: 10.14573/altex.2106111. Epub 2021 Jun 22.
Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimizing editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted.
系统评价在毒理学和环境卫生文献中越来越流行。然而，这些复杂的研究项目的实施和报告情况尚不清楚。由于编辑在确保其期刊发表的手稿的科学质量方面发挥着重要作用，因此举办了一个研讨会，编辑、系统评价从业者和研究质量控制专家可以讨论编辑可以采取哪些措施来确保他们发表的系统评价具有足够的科学质量。干预措施是沿着四个主题进行探讨的：制定标准；审查方案；优化编辑工作流程；和评估编辑干预措施的效果。总共提出了 58 项编辑干预措施。其中，有 26 项被列为具有潜在有效性，5 项被列为短期行动，编辑可以相对容易地采取这些行动来提高已发表系统评价的质量。总结了提高系统评价质量的最新进展，并强调了进一步提高质量所面临的挑战。
