Nørgaard Birgitte, Briel Matthias, Chrysostomou Stavri, Ristic Medic Danijela, Buttigieg Sandra C, Kiisk Ele, Puljak Livia, Bala Malgorzata, Pericic Tina Poklepovic, Lesniak Wiktoria, Zając Joanna, Lund Hans, Pieper Dawid
Department of Public Health, University of Southern, Denmark.
Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (CEB), Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland; Department of Health Research Methodology, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Oct;150:126-141. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.021. Epub 2022 Jul 3.
This systematic review aimed to identify the characteristics and application of citation analyses in evaluating the justification, design, and placement of the research results of clinical health studies in the context of earlier similar studies.
We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies. We included meta-research studies assessing whether researchers used earlier similar studies and/or systematic reviews of such studies to inform the justification or design of a new study, whether researchers used systematic reviews to inform the interpretation of new results, and meta-research studies assessing whether redundant studies were published within a specific area. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis.
A total of 27 studies were included. How authors of citation analyses define their outcomes appears rather arbitrary, as does how the reference of a landmark review or adherence to reporting guidelines was expected to contribute to the initiation, justification, design, or contextualization of relevant clinical trials.
Continued and improved efforts to promote evidence-based research are needed, including clearly defined and justified outcomes in meta-research studies to monitor the implementation of an evidence-based approach.
本系统评价旨在确定在早期类似研究背景下，文献计量分析在评估临床健康研究结果的合理性、设计及定位方面的特征与应用。
我们检索了MEDLINE（Ovid）、Embase（Ovid）和Cochrane方法学注册库中的元研究。我们纳入了评估研究人员是否使用早期类似研究和/或对此类研究的系统评价来为新研究的合理性或设计提供信息的元研究，研究人员是否使用系统评价来为新结果的解释提供信息的元研究，以及评估特定领域内是否发表了冗余研究的元研究。结果以叙述性综述的形式呈现。
共纳入27项研究。文献计量分析的作者如何定义其结果显得相当随意，标志性综述的参考文献或对报告指南的遵循预期如何促进相关临床试验的启动、合理性、设计或情境化也同样如此。
需要持续且改进的努力来促进循证研究，包括在元研究中明确界定且合理的结果，以监测循证方法的实施情况。
