研究诚信中的不当行为：评估Cochrane泌尿外科癌症综述小组系统评价的质量。
Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group.
作者信息
Salehi-Pourmehr Hanieh, Naseri Amirreza, Mostafaei Ali, Vahedi Leila, Sajjadi Sana, Tayebi Sona, Mostafaei Hadi, Hajebrahimi Sakineh
机构信息
Research Center for Evidence Based-Medicine, Iranian EBM Center: A Joanna Briggs Institute Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Research Center for Evidence Based-Medicine, Iranian EBM Center: A Joanna Briggs Institute Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran; Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
出版信息
Turk J Urol. 2021 Sep;47(5):392-419. doi: 10.5152/tud.2021.21038.
OBJECTIVE
Cochrane Library provides a powerful and authoritative database to aid medical decision making. We aimed to evaluate the quality of clinical trials and systematic reviews recorded in the Cochrane urology cancers group.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This analytic cross-sectional study was conducted on 44 published systematic reviews of the Cochrane urology group which were published until May 2020. In the current study, we selected the urological cancer reviews. All types of biases in the understudied randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of these systematic reviews were evaluated using the Cochrane appraisal checklist. We also separated and stratified the types of biases in the included studies. In addition, the quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal checklist.
RESULTS
A total of 44 systematic reviews and their understudied 340 RCTs were evaluated. On the basis of the JBI appraisal checklist results, 93.2% of systematic reviews had high quality. In terms of the quality of understudied RCTs in these reviews, the common prevalent risk of bias of the understudied RCTs or quasi- RCTs was unclear selection bias (allocation concealment and random sequence generation). The highest risk of bias was seen in the blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias).
CONCLUSION
Although most Cochrane urological cancer reviews had high quality, performance bias was the highest one in their understudied RCTs. Regarding it and considering the increasing unclear risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases, it is obvious that they have structural deficiencies; therefore, it is recommended to observe integrity principles for preventing research misconduct.
目的
Cochrane图书馆提供了一个强大且权威的数据库，以辅助医学决策。我们旨在评估Cochrane泌尿外科癌症小组记录的临床试验和系统评价的质量。
材料与方法
本分析性横断面研究针对截至2020年5月发表的Cochrane泌尿外科小组的44篇已发表系统评价进行。在本研究中，我们选择了泌尿外科癌症相关评价。使用Cochrane评估清单对这些系统评价中所研究的随机对照试验（RCT）或半随机对照试验中的各类偏倚进行评估。我们还对纳入研究中的偏倚类型进行了分类和分层。此外，使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所（JBI）评估清单对系统评价的质量进行评估。
结果
共评估了44篇系统评价及其所研究的340项RCT。根据JBI评估清单结果，93.2%的系统评价质量较高。就这些评价中所研究的RCT质量而言，所研究的RCT或半随机对照试验中常见的主要偏倚风险是选择偏倚不明确（分配隐藏和随机序列生成）。偏倚风险最高的是参与者和人员的盲法（实施偏倚）。
结论
尽管大多数Cochrane泌尿外科癌症相关评价质量较高，但其所研究的RCT中实施偏倚最高。考虑到这一点以及检测、失访和报告偏倚的不明确风险增加，显然它们存在结构缺陷；因此，建议遵守诚信原则以防止研究不当行为。
Zotero 插件