Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2024 Jun 1;25(6):1857-1859. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.6.1857.
A well-conducted review provides quality evidence to inform policy and practice. It is important that the review is as rigorous and as fully reported as possible if the evidence from the review is incorporated into clinical practice. We are writing in response to an article titled, ‘Evidence of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Regarding Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination at the Community Level in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ by Pal et al published in Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention in March 2024. There are some major methodological flaws in the paper that might have biased the conclusions drawn from the review to inform strategies to improve HPV vaccine uptake by the target population in India. There was clear evidence of substantial heterogeneity (I2=96.0%-100%) among the studies that were included in the meta-analysis. In addition, the outcomes measured were not specific. More ever, the authors did not strictly follow the PRISMA guidelines for screening. Furthermore, the data extraction process and the reasons for language restriction were not clear, all of which could contribute to biased results, lowering the validity of the findings.
一项精心进行的综述可以提供高质量的证据，为政策和实践提供信息。如果将综述中的证据纳入临床实践，那么综述尽可能严谨和全面地报告是非常重要的。我们写这封信是为了回应 Pal 等人发表在 2024 年 3 月的《亚洲太平洋癌症预防杂志》上的一篇题为“印度社区一级人乳头瘤病毒疫苗接种的知识、态度和实践的证据：系统评价和荟萃分析”的文章。该论文存在一些主要的方法学缺陷，这可能会使从综述中得出的结论产生偏差，从而影响印度目标人群中 HPV 疫苗接种率的提高策略。荟萃分析中纳入的研究存在明显的异质性（I2=96.0%-100%）。此外，测量的结果并不具体。更重要的是，作者没有严格遵循 PRISMA 指南进行筛选。此外，数据提取过程和语言限制的原因不明确，所有这些都可能导致结果产生偏差，降低研究结果的有效性。
