Suppr超能文献

塑造科学的品质、价值观和标准。报告指南如何提高生物医学研究的透明度。

Shaping the Qualities, Values and Standards of Science. How Reporting Guidelines Improve the Transparency of Biomedical Research.

作者信息

Schniedermann Alexander

机构信息

German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Berlin, Germany.

Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden, Netherlands.

出版信息

Front Res Metr Anal. 2022 Jun 27;7:846822. doi: 10.3389/frma.2022.846822. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

What is scientific quality and how can it be achieved? Recent developments in clinical biomedicine gave prominence to transparency as a new core value for scientific research. Without transparency, other characteristics and values remain unknown. But how can abstract concepts and values be implemented in day-to-day scientific practices and what gets lost on the way? In order to answer this question, this study investigates the role of the PRISMA reporting guideline for writing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. By combining a document analysis and expert interviews with its developers, it attempts to bridge the gap between research practice and current modes of evaluation. Beside showing how the guideline was designed to be applicable and acceptable as a new standard, the analysis revealed crucial distinctions between transparency as an abstract quality goal and its practical implementation in the form of specifically formulated rules. Although PRISMA relies on transparency in order to be meaningful, it blurs the concept in order to circumvent some of its main disadvantages.

摘要

什么是科学质量以及如何实现它?临床生物医学的最新发展使透明度成为科学研究的一项新的核心价值。没有透明度,其他特征和价值就仍然不为人知。但是抽象的概念和价值如何在日常科学实践中得以实施,以及在此过程中会失去什么?为了回答这个问题,本研究调查了PRISMA报告指南在撰写系统评价和荟萃分析中的作用。通过将文献分析与对该指南开发者的专家访谈相结合,它试图弥合研究实践与当前评估模式之间的差距。除了展示该指南如何被设计成作为一项新标准是适用且可接受的之外,分析还揭示了作为抽象质量目标的透明度与其以具体制定的规则形式的实际实施之间的关键区别。尽管PRISMA依赖透明度以便有意义,但它为了规避其一些主要缺点而模糊了这一概念。

相似文献

1
Shaping the Qualities, Values and Standards of Science. How Reporting Guidelines Improve the Transparency of Biomedical Research.
Front Res Metr Anal. 2022 Jun 27;7:846822. doi: 10.3389/frma.2022.846822. eCollection 2022.
2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
4
Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov;9 Suppl 1:5-29. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5.
5
Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.
Qual Life Res. 2024 Aug;33(8):2029-2046. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03634-y. Epub 2024 Jul 9.
6
Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024 Jul 9;22(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12955-024-02256-9.
7
Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024 Jul 9;8(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s41687-024-00727-7.
8
[Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Dec;133 Suppl 7:S225-46. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1100954. Epub 2008 Nov 25.
9
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension.
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2021 Oct;96(5):1695-1722. doi: 10.1111/brv.12721. Epub 2021 May 7.
10
Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Sep;173:111422. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111422. Epub 2024 Jul 9.

引用本文的文献

1
A plan for systematic reviews for high-need areas in forensic science.
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2024 Aug 31;9:100542. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100542. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

1
How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought.
Learn Publ. 2023 Jul;36(3):334-347. doi: 10.1002/leap.1544. Epub 2023 Apr 27.
4
Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk.
Nature. 2020 Oct;586(7829):358-360. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8.
5
Citation impact was highly variable for reporting guidelines of health research: a citation analysis.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Nov;127:96-104. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.013. Epub 2020 Jul 23.
6
The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity.
PLoS Biol. 2020 Jul 16;18(7):e3000737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737. eCollection 2020 Jul.
7
Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018 Jul;13(4):411-417. doi: 10.1177/1745691617751884.
8
Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting.
Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 20;7(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0699-4.
10
The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise.
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 10;11(11):e0166387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166387. eCollection 2016.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验