National Institute of Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS/HCPA), Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Clinical Research Center, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Exercise Pathophysiology Research Laboratory, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Clinical Research Center, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2350, Porto Alegre, RS, CEP: 90035-903, Brazil.
Syst Rev. 2021 Dec 2;10(1):304. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01845-9.
BACKGROUND: Several resources have been developed (e.g., reporting guidelines) to promote high-standard practices in health research. However, there was no continuous and systematic assessment of recommended practices in published systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMAs), which increases the usability of the available resources. Therefore, we aimed to assess the methodological and reporting standards in SRMAs of physical activity studies. This report presents the main results of the SEES Initiative in 2019. METHODS: Our approach is based on a prospective systematic review methodology to implement post-publication surveillance of research practices in exercise sciences. Briefly, during the year 2019, pre-specified searches were conducted monthly (PubMed/MEDLINE) in journals from the exercise sciences (n = 9) and medicine (n = 5). The assessments were independently conducted by two authors, based on 36 items/practices derived from established statements/tools (PRISMA, AMSTAR 2, ROBIS). To be eligible, SRMAs should summarize studies that had, at least, one arm consisting of physical activity interventions/exposures and one health or behavioral outcome. RESULTS: Out of 1028 studies assessed for eligibility, 103 SRMAs were included. The minimum adherence was 13/36 items, whereas only one SRMA adhered to all items. Some highly contemplated items included identification of title as SRMA (97.1%) and descriptions of the main outcome in the abstract (95.1%) and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (95.1%). Some poorly contemplated items included publicly available protocol (4.9%), discussion of the results in light of RoB in studies included (32.0%), and data sharing statements (35.9%). CONCLUSION: In summary, there is a suboptimal adherence to recommended practices on methodological quality and reporting standards in the SRMAs of physical activity intervention/exposure evaluated from the selected journals in 2019, which likely reduce the reproducibility and usefulness of these studies. This incipient evidence from our first 12 months of post-publication surveillance should serve as a call for attention and action for multiple stakeholders (e.g., authors, reviewers, editors, funders, academic institutions) in this important health research field.
背景：已经开发了一些资源（例如报告指南）来促进健康研究中的高标准实践。然而，对于已发表的包含荟萃分析的系统评价（SRMA）中推荐实践的情况，并没有进行持续和系统的评估，这增加了现有资源的可用性。因此，我们旨在评估体育活动研究的 SRMA 中的方法学和报告标准。本报告介绍了 2019 年 SEES 倡议的主要结果。
方法：我们的方法基于前瞻性系统评价方法，对运动科学研究中的研究实践进行发表后监测。简要地说，在 2019 年期间，每月（PubMed/MEDLINE）对运动科学（n=9）和医学（n=5）期刊进行预设定检索。评估由两名作者独立进行，评估的基础是源自既定声明/工具（PRISMA、AMSTAR 2、ROBIS）的 36 个项目/实践。为了符合纳入标准，SRMA 应总结至少有一个包含体育活动干预/暴露的组和一个健康或行为结果的研究。
结果：在评估合格性的 1028 项研究中，有 103 项 SRMA 被纳入。最低的依从性为 13/36 项，只有一项 SRMA 符合所有项目。一些被高度考虑的项目包括标题识别为 SRMA（97.1%）、摘要中主要结果的描述（95.1%）和风险偏倚（RoB）评估（95.1%）。一些考虑较差的项目包括可公开获得的方案（4.9%）、根据纳入研究的 RoB 对结果进行讨论（32.0%）和数据共享声明（35.9%）。
结论：总之，在 2019 年从选定期刊中评估的体育活动干预/暴露的 SRMA 中，方法学质量和报告标准的建议实践的依从性较差，这可能会降低这些研究的可重复性和有用性。我们发表后监测的头 12 个月的这一初步证据，应该引起作者、评论者、编辑、资助者、学术机构等多个利益相关者的关注和行动，这是健康研究领域的一个重要问题。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024-9-27
Nat Hum Behav. 2017-1-10
Br J Sports Med. 2020-12
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018-4-11
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017-11-4
Zotero 插件