• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

一种新的系统评价再现性测试方法已经开发出来,但需要进一步测试。

A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing.

机构信息

Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany.

Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Jul 29;21(1):157. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01342-6.

DOI:10.1186/s12874-021-01342-6
PMID:34325650
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8323273/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

To develop and test an approach to test reproducibility of SRs.

METHODS

Case study. We have developed an approach to test reproducibility retrospectively while focusing on the whole conduct of an SR instead of single steps of it. We replicated the literature searches and drew a 25% random sample followed by study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments performed by two reviewers independently. These results were compared narratively with the original review.

RESULTS

We were not able to fully reproduce the original search resulting in minor differences in the number of citations retrieved. The biggest disagreements were found in study selection. The most difficult section to be reproduced was the RoB assessment due to the lack of reporting clear criteria to support the judgement of RoB ratings, although agreement was still found to be satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

Our approach as well as other approaches needs to undergo testing and comparison in the future as the area of testing for reproducibility of SRs is still in its infancy.

摘要

背景

开发并测试一种系统评价可重复性测试方法。

方法

案例研究。我们开发了一种回顾性测试可重复性的方法,重点关注整个系统评价的实施过程,而不是单个步骤。我们复制了文献检索,并抽取了 25%的随机样本,然后由两名评审员独立进行研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险(ROB)评估。这些结果与原始综述进行了叙述性比较。

结果

我们无法完全复制原始检索,导致检索到的引文数量存在细微差异。最大的分歧出现在研究选择上。由于缺乏明确的报告标准来支持 ROB 评估的判断,因此可重复性最差的部分是 ROB 评估,尽管仍发现一致性令人满意。

结论

我们的方法以及其他方法需要在未来进行测试和比较,因为系统评价可重复性测试领域仍处于起步阶段。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/228f/8323273/153d2a9043a0/12874_2021_1342_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/228f/8323273/153d2a9043a0/12874_2021_1342_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/228f/8323273/153d2a9043a0/12874_2021_1342_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing.一种新的系统评价再现性测试方法已经开发出来,但需要进一步测试。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Jul 29;21(1):157. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01342-6.
2
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
3
Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews.进行系统评价的方法学资源工具包。
F1000Res. 2020 Feb 4;9:82. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.22032.3. eCollection 2020.
4
Risk of bias assessments and reporting quality of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials examining acupuncture for depression: An overview and meta-epidemiology study.系统评价和随机对照试验评估针刺治疗抑郁症的偏倚风险和报告质量:概述和荟萃流行病学研究。
J Evid Based Med. 2020 Feb;13(1):25-33. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12372.
5
Methodological quality and risk of bias in orthodontic systematic reviews using AMSTAR and ROBIS.使用 AMSTAR 和 ROBIS 评估正畸系统评价的方法学质量和偏倚风险。
Eur J Orthod. 2021 Oct 4;43(5):544-550. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjaa074.
6
Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews.使用 AMSTAR-2 和 ROBIS 评估系统评价的实施质量的相似性、可靠性和差距:营养评价的系统调查。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Nov 27;21(1):261. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01457-w.
7
Methodological tools and sensitivity analysis for assessing quality or risk of bias used in systematic reviews published in the high-impact anesthesiology journals.评估系统评价中质量或偏倚风险的方法学工具和敏感性分析,发表于高影响力的麻醉学期刊。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 May 18;20(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-00966-4.
8
Methodological quality and risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews of treatments for peri-implantitis.系统评价治疗种植体周围炎的方法学质量和偏倚风险评估。
J Periodontal Res. 2019 Aug;54(4):374-387. doi: 10.1111/jre.12638. Epub 2019 Jan 22.
9
Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design.纳入多个 Cochrane 系统评价的随机对照试验偏倚风险评估存在分歧:使用横断面设计的研究研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 1;9(4):e028382. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028382.
10
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparative assessment of Cochrane's ROB and ROB2 in dentistry trials: a meta-research study.Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具(ROB)和ROB2在牙科试验中的比较评估:一项元研究
Syst Rev. 2025 Jul 28;14(1):154. doi: 10.1186/s13643-025-02901-4.

本文引用的文献

1
PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.PRISMA 2020 解释和说明:系统评价报告的更新指南和范例。
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160.
2
Reproducibility of individual effect sizes in meta-analyses in psychology.心理学元分析中个体效应量的可重复性。
PLoS One. 2020 May 27;15(5):e0233107. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233107. eCollection 2020.
3
High Variability in Sepsis Guidelines in UK: Why Does It Matter?英国脓毒症指南存在高度变异性:为何这很重要?
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 19;17(6):2026. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17062026.
4
Inter-review agreement of risk-of-bias judgments varied in Cochrane reviews.Cochrane 综述中的偏倚风险评估的重复评价一致性存在差异。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Apr;120:25-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.016. Epub 2019 Dec 19.
5
Contacting of authors modified crucial outcomes of systematic reviews but was poorly reported, not systematic, and produced conflicting results.作者联系修改了系统评价的关键结局,但报告情况较差,不系统,且产生了相互矛盾的结果。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Nov;115:64-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.001. Epub 2019 Jul 8.
6
Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review.单筛法与传统双筛法在系统评价中用于研究选择的比较:一项方法学系统评价。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jun 28;19(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0.
7
Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design.纳入多个 Cochrane 系统评价的随机对照试验偏倚风险评估存在分歧:使用横断面设计的研究研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 1;9(4):e028382. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028382.
8
Reproducibility of search strategies of non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals is suboptimal: primary methodological study.发表于麻醉学杂志的非Cochrane系统评价检索策略的可重复性欠佳:方法学初步研究
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Jun;122(6):e79-e81. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.02.014. Epub 2019 Mar 20.
9
Effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid intake in patients with chronic kidney disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.ω-3 多不饱和脂肪酸摄入对慢性肾脏病患者的影响:系统评价和随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
Clin Nutr. 2020 Feb;39(2):358-368. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.02.041. Epub 2019 Mar 14.
10
Should a systematic review be tested for reproducibility before its publication?系统评价在发表前是否应进行可重复性测试?
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jun;110:96. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.008. Epub 2019 Feb 14.