Medical Research Center, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Distributed eLibrary, Weill Cornell Medicine - Qatar, Education City, Doha, Qatar.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023 Oct;18(4):250-262. doi: 10.1177/15562646231191424. Epub 2023 Aug 1.
The aim of this systematic review is to estimate: (i) the overall effect of blinding models on bias; (ii) the effect of each blinding model; and (iii) the effect of un-blinding on reviewer's accountability in biomedical research proposals. Systematic review of prospective or retrospective comparative studies that evaluated two or more peer review blinding models for biomedical research proposals/funding applications and reported outcomes related to peer review efficiency. Three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review and assessed using the QualSyst tool by two authors. Our systematic review is the first to assess peer review blinding models in the context of funding. While only three studies were included, this highlighted the dire need for further RCTs that generate validated evidence. We also discussed multiple aspects of peer review, such as peer review in manuscripts vs proposals and peer review in other fields.
（i） 盲法模型对偏倚的总体影响；（ii） 每种盲法模型的效果；以及（iii） 在生物医学研究提案中，不盲法对评审员问责制的影响。 对前瞻性或回顾性比较研究的系统评价，这些研究评估了两种或多种用于生物医学研究提案/资助申请的同行评审盲法模型，并报告了与同行评审效率相关的结果。 本综述纳入了符合纳入标准的三项研究，并由两位作者使用 QualSyst 工具进行评估。 我们的系统评价是首次在资助背景下评估同行评审盲法模型。虽然只纳入了三项研究，但这突出表明迫切需要进一步的 RCT 来产生经过验证的证据。我们还讨论了同行评审的多个方面，例如手稿与提案中的同行评审以及其他领域的同行评审。
