考科蓝妇科癌症小组系统评价的质量及其未充分研究的随机对照试验

Quality of the Systematic Reviews in Cochrane Gynecological Cancer Group and Their Understudied RCTs.

作者信息

Hajebrahimi Sakineh, Dalir Akbari Nooriyeh, Haji Kamanaj Arash, Hassannezhad Sina, Aminizadeh Sarina, Darvishi Faezeh, HajEbrahimi Reyhaneh, Salehi-Pourmehr Hanieh

机构信息

Research Center for Evidence Based-Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Iranian EBM Center: A Joanna Briggs Institute Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Azadi street-Golgasht Ave, 5166/15731 Tabriz, East Azarbaijan Iran.

Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

出版信息

J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2022 Aug;72(Suppl 1):346-351. doi: 10.1007/s13224-022-01655-6. Epub 2022 Apr 13.

DOI:10.1007/s13224-022-01655-6

PMID:35928093

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9343491/

Abstract

PURPOSE

Gynecological cancers are common neoplasms in clinical settings with a high impact on the economy of communities. The medical literature is an essential resource to guide clinical decision-making, and misconduct in researches undermines the credibility and integrity of research in general. We aimed to evaluate the quality of Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews and their understudies RCTS among the different biases dimensions.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analytical study was performed on 118 systematic reviews published by the Cochrane gynecological cancers Group up to June 2021. The risk of bias was assessed in each Cochrane survey using the Joanna Bridges Institute (JBI) critical assessment tool consisting of 11 questions. The JBI checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses is available at https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools. After a systematic critical evaluation of the reviews and meta-analysis, we extracted a different bias from all of their understudied RCTs examined in these systematic reviews, which were evaluated by systematic review authors using a standard bias risk tool developed by the Cochrane Group.

RESULTS

Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews had high quality based on appraise results using the JBI appraisal checklist. In addition, all of the included studies used PRISMA standards for reporting their results. However, in their understudied RCTs, the most prevalent risk of bias was unclear selection bias (allocation concealment) and performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel). Also, the highest risk of bias was blinding participants and personnel (performance bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Our results showed that the lowest risk of bias was incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) and random sequence generation (selection bias).

CONCLUSION

Although most Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews had high quality, unclear performance bias was the highest in their understudied RCTs, indicating structural deficiencies.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13224-022-01655-6.

摘要

目的

妇科癌症是临床常见肿瘤，对社区经济有重大影响。医学文献是指导临床决策的重要资源，而研究中的不当行为会损害整个研究的可信度和完整性。我们旨在评估Cochrane妇科癌症综述及其纳入的随机对照试验（RCT）在不同偏倚维度上的质量。

方法

本横断面分析研究针对截至2021年6月Cochrane妇科癌症小组发表的118篇系统综述进行。使用由11个问题组成的乔安娜·布里格斯研究所（JBI）批判性评估工具，对每项Cochrane综述中的偏倚风险进行评估。系统综述和研究综合的JBI清单可在https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools获取。在对综述和荟萃分析进行系统的批判性评估后，我们从这些系统综述中所纳入的所有未充分研究的RCT中提取了不同的偏倚，这些RCT由系统综述作者使用Cochrane小组开发的标准偏倚风险工具进行评估。

结果

根据使用JBI评估清单的评估结果，Cochrane妇科癌症综述质量较高。此外，所有纳入研究均采用PRISMA标准报告其结果。然而，在其未充分研究的RCT中，最常见的偏倚风险是选择偏倚（分配隐藏）不明确和实施偏倚（参与者和人员的盲法）。此外，偏倚风险最高的是参与者和人员的盲法（实施偏倚）以及结局数据不完整（失访偏倚）。我们的结果表明，偏倚风险最低的是结局数据不完整（失访偏倚）和随机序列生成（选择偏倚）。