Eisele-Metzger Angelika, Bollig Claudia, Meerpohl Joerg J
Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Freiburg, Germany.
J Eur CME. 2021 Dec 13;10(1):2014096. doi: 10.1080/21614083.2021.2014096. eCollection 2021.
Today, keeping up with the fast evolving evidence is more challenging than ever for practising physicians. A huge number of studies are published every day, and it is no longer possible to read all the relevant individual studies. Many physicians prefer attending continuing medical education (CME) to reading international scientific publications. Consequently, it is critical that CME is based on the best available evidence and presented in an unbiased manner free of conflicts of interest. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews in particular can thus provide a valuable resource of up-to-date and high-quality information on health care questions for CME providers. Of note, systematic reviews might become outdated quickly. Furthermore, some systematic reviews are fraught with limitations such as poor methodology and conduct or incomplete and misleading reporting. This article provides a brief overview of systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews, outlines how systematic reviews can be "kept alive" using today's digital opportunities and points to several common problems of systematic reviews with suggestions for solutions.
如今，对于执业医师而言，跟上快速发展的医学证据比以往任何时候都更具挑战性。每天都有大量研究发表，阅读所有相关的个体研究已不再可行。许多医生更喜欢参加继续医学教育（CME）而不是阅读国际科学出版物。因此，至关重要的是，继续医学教育要基于现有最佳证据，并以无利益冲突的公正方式呈现。特别是系统评价和Cochrane评价，可为继续医学教育提供者提供有关医疗保健问题的最新和高质量信息的宝贵资源。值得注意的是，系统评价可能很快过时。此外，一些系统评价存在诸多局限性，如方法和实施欠佳、报告不完整或具有误导性。本文简要概述了系统评价和Cochrane评价，概述了如何利用当今的数字机遇使系统评价“与时俱进”，并指出了系统评价的几个常见问题及解决建议。
