Suppr超能文献

临床医学系统评价背后的基本原理:一个概念框架。

The rationale behind systematic reviews in clinical medicine: a conceptual framework.

作者信息

Moosapour Hamideh, Saeidifard Farzane, Aalaa Maryam, Soltani Akbar, Larijani Bagher

机构信息

Evidence Based Medicine Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Department of Medicine, Northwell Health-Lenox Hill Hospital, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New York, NY USA.

出版信息

J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2021 Apr 8;20(1):919-929. doi: 10.1007/s40200-021-00773-8. eCollection 2021 Jun.

Abstract

A systematic review (SR) is a type of review that uses a systematic method to provide a valid summary of existing literature addressing a clear and specific question. In clinical medicine (CM), the concept of SR is well recognized, especially after the introduction of evidence-based medicine; The SR of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is considered the highest level of evidence on therapeutic effectiveness. Despite the popularity of the SRs and the increasing publication rate of SRs in CM and other healthcare literature, the concept has raised criticisms. Many of proper criticisms can be due to the deviation of some existing SRs from the original philosophy and well-established rationale behind the concept of SR. On the other hand, many criticisms are misconceptions about SRs which still exist even several decades after introducing the concept. This article presents a conceptual framework for clarifying the rationale behind SR in CM by providing the relevant concepts and their inter-relations, explaining how methodological standards of an SR and its rationale are connected, and discussing the rationale under the three-section: SR as a type of synthetic research, SR as a more informed and less biased review, and SR as an efficient scientific tool.

摘要

系统评价(SR)是一种综述类型,它采用系统的方法,针对明确且具体的问题,对现有文献提供有效的总结。在临床医学(CM)中,系统评价的概念已得到广泛认可,尤其是在循证医学引入之后;随机临床试验(RCT)的系统评价被视为治疗效果方面的最高证据级别。尽管系统评价很受欢迎,且在临床医学及其他医疗文献中系统评价的发表率不断提高,但这一概念也引发了一些批评。许多合理的批评可能源于一些现有系统评价偏离了系统评价概念背后的原始理念和既定依据。另一方面,许多批评是对系统评价的误解,即使在该概念提出几十年后这些误解仍然存在。本文通过提供相关概念及其相互关系,解释系统评价的方法标准与其依据是如何关联的,并在三个部分讨论其依据,即系统评价作为一种综合研究类型、作为更具信息性和较少偏差的综述以及作为一种高效的科学工具,从而提出一个概念框架,以阐明临床医学中系统评价背后的依据。

相似文献

1
The rationale behind systematic reviews in clinical medicine: a conceptual framework.
J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2021 Apr 8;20(1):919-929. doi: 10.1007/s40200-021-00773-8. eCollection 2021 Jun.
2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
5
Conflict of Evidence: Resolving Discrepancies When Findings from Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-analyses Disagree.
Eur Urol. 2017 May;71(5):811-819. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.023. Epub 2016 Nov 30.
6
Are randomized controlled trials in urology being conducted with justification?
J Osteopath Med. 2021 May 21;121(8):665-671. doi: 10.1515/jom-2021-0078.
7
Using ontology-based semantic similarity to facilitate the article screening process for systematic reviews.
J Biomed Inform. 2017 May;69:33-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2017.03.007. Epub 2017 Mar 14.
8
Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study.
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2018 Dec;27(6):619-627. doi: 10.1017/S2045796017000208. Epub 2017 May 2.
9
Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e35732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035732. Epub 2012 May 1.

引用本文的文献

1
Primary author contact for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials: A systematic review.
World J Methodol. 2025 Sep 20;15(3):95559. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v15.i3.95559.
4
Laminoplasty vs Laminectomy and Fusion for Cervical Myelopathy: Alarming Rates of Bias.
Global Spine J. 2025 May 16:21925682251343833. doi: 10.1177/21925682251343833.
5
Minority stress and stimulant use among US adult sexual minority men: A systematic review.
Drug Alcohol Depend Rep. 2025 Apr 12;15:100333. doi: 10.1016/j.dadr.2025.100333. eCollection 2025 Jun.
6
Developing the Digital Health Communication Maturity Model: Systematic Review.
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Apr 14;27:e68344. doi: 10.2196/68344.
7
Methodological literature on the reporting of systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a scoping review protocol.
F1000Res. 2024 Nov 18;13:1382. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.156907.1. eCollection 2024.
9
The medico-legal interpretation of diatom findings for the diagnosis of fatal drowning: a systematic review.
Int J Legal Med. 2025 Mar;139(2):729-746. doi: 10.1007/s00414-024-03397-8. Epub 2025 Jan 14.
10
From Data to Recommendations: A Comprehensive Review of Ten Bibliometric Papers in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Apr;49(8):2269-2280. doi: 10.1007/s00266-024-04518-9. Epub 2024 Dec 2.

本文引用的文献

1
Prevalence of thyroid eye disease in Graves' disease: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2020 Oct;93(4):363-374. doi: 10.1111/cen.14296. Epub 2020 Aug 10.
2
Metrics of activity in social networks are correlated with traditional metrics of scientific impact in endocrinology journals.
Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2019 Jul-Aug;13(4):2437-2440. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2019.06.018. Epub 2019 Jun 13.
3
Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?
Eur J Clin Invest. 2018 Jun;48(6):e12931. doi: 10.1111/eci.12931. Epub 2018 Apr 16.
4
Meta-research: Why research on research matters.
PLoS Biol. 2018 Mar 13;16(3):e2005468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468. eCollection 2018 Mar.
7
Systematic reviews: Separating fact from fiction.
Environ Int. 2016 Jul-Aug;92-93:578-84. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.07.011. Epub 2015 Sep 12.
8
Why Systematic Review rather than Narrative Review?
Psychiatry Investig. 2015 Jul;12(3):417-9. doi: 10.4306/pi.2015.12.3.417. Epub 2015 Jul 6.
9
Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013 Jan;18(1):44-50. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2012.011175.
10
The automation of systematic reviews.
BMJ. 2013 Jan 10;346:f139. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f139.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验