Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark and Public Health and Epidemiology Group, Department of Health, Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Denmark, Aalborg, Denmark.
Syst Rev. 2022 Sep 5;11(1):189. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02062-8.
Results of new studies should be interpreted in the context of what is already known to compare results and build the state of the science. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesise results from meta-research studies examining if original studies within health use systematic reviews to place their results in the context of earlier, similar studies.
We searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies reporting the use of systematic reviews to place results of original clinical studies in the context of existing studies. The primary outcome was the percentage of original studies included in the meta-research studies using systematic reviews or meta-analyses placing new results in the context of existing studies. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the mean proportion of original studies placing their results in the context of earlier studies. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework.
We included 15 meta-research studies, representing 1724 original studies. The mean percentage of original studies within these meta-research studies placing their results in the context of existing studies was 30.7% (95% CI [23.8%, 37.6%], I=87.4%). Only one of the meta-research studies integrated results in a meta-analysis, while four integrated their results within a systematic review; the remaining cited or referred to a systematic review. The results of this systematic review are characterised by a high degree of heterogeneity and should be interpreted cautiously.
Our systematic review demonstrates a low rate of and great variability in using systematic reviews to place new results in the context of existing studies. On average, one third of the original studies contextualised their results. Improvement is still needed in researchers' use of prior research systematically and transparently-also known as the use of an evidence-based research approach, to contribute to the accumulation of new evidence on which future studies should be based.
Open Science registration number https://osf.io/8gkzu/.
新的研究结果应该在已知的基础上进行解释，以便比较结果并建立科学现状。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在确定和综合元研究研究的结果，这些研究检查原始健康研究是否使用系统评价将其结果置于先前相似研究的背景下。
我们在 MEDLINE（OVID）、EMBASE（OVID）和 Cochrane 方法学注册库中搜索了报告使用系统评价将原始临床研究结果置于现有研究背景下的元研究。主要结果是纳入元研究的原始研究的百分比，这些研究使用系统评价或荟萃分析将新结果置于现有研究的背景下。两名审查员独立进行筛选和数据提取。使用叙述性综合法对数据进行综合，并进行随机效应荟萃分析，以估计将结果置于先前研究背景下的原始研究的平均比例。该方案在开放科学框架中注册。
我们纳入了 15 项元研究，代表 1724 项原始研究。这些元研究中纳入的原始研究中，将其结果置于现有研究背景下的平均百分比为 30.7%（95%CI [23.8%, 37.6%]，I=87.4%）。只有一项元研究对结果进行了荟萃分析，四项元研究将结果整合到系统综述中；其余的则引用或参考了系统综述。本系统评价的结果具有高度的异质性，应谨慎解释。
我们的系统评价表明，使用系统评价将新结果置于现有研究背景下的比例较低，且变化较大。平均而言，三分之一的原始研究对其结果进行了背景化。在研究人员系统地和透明地使用先前研究方面仍需要改进——也称为使用循证研究方法，以有助于积累新的证据，未来的研究应该基于这些证据。
Open Science 注册号 https://osf.io/8gkzu/。
