Cumpston Miranda S, McKenzie Joanne E, Ryan Rebecca, Thomas James, Brennan Sue E
Methods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia.
Centre for Health Communication & Participation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Nov;163:79-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.09.013. Epub 2023 Sep 29.
To examine the characteristics of population, intervention and outcome groups and the extent to which they were completely reported for each synthesis in a sample of systematic reviews (SRs) of interventions.
We coded groups that were intended (or used) for comparisons in 100 randomly sampled SRs of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 from the Health Evidence and Health Systems Evidence databases.
Authors commonly used population, intervention and outcome groups to structure comparisons, but these groups were often incompletely reported. For example, of 41 SRs that identified and/or used intervention groups for comparisons, 29 (71%) identified the groups in their methods description before reporting of the results (e.g., in the Background or Methods), 12 (29%) defined the groups in enough detail to replicate decisions about which included studies were eligible for each synthesis, 6 (15%) provided a rationale, and 24 (59%) stated that the groups would be used for comparisons. Sixteen (39%) SRs used intervention groups in their synthesis without any mention in the methods. Reporting for population, outcome and methodological groups was similarly incomplete.
Complete reporting of the groups used for synthesis would improve transparency and replicability of reviews, and help ensure that the synthesis is not driven by what is reported in the included studies. Although concerted effort is needed to improve reporting, this should lead to more focused and useful reviews for decision-makers.
在一组干预措施的系统评价（SR）样本中，研究人群、干预措施和结局组的特征，以及在每次综合分析中对这些组进行完整报告的程度。
我们对2018年从健康证据数据库和卫生系统证据数据库中随机抽取的100篇公共卫生和卫生系统干预措施的SR中用于比较的组进行编码。
作者通常使用人群、干预措施和结局组来构建比较，但这些组的报告往往不完整。例如，在41篇识别和/或使用干预组进行比较的SR中，29篇（71%）在结果报告之前（如在背景或方法部分）的方法描述中识别了这些组，12篇（29%）对这些组进行了足够详细的定义，以便复制关于哪些纳入研究符合每次综合分析条件的决策，6篇（15%）提供了理由，24篇（59%）表示这些组将用于比较。16篇（39%）SR在综合分析中使用了干预组，但在方法中未提及。人群、结局和方法组的报告同样不完整。
对用于综合分析的组进行完整报告将提高评价的透明度和可重复性，并有助于确保综合分析不受纳入研究报告内容的驱动。尽管需要共同努力来改善报告情况，但这应能为决策者带来更有针对性和更有用的评价。
