Nguyen Phi-Yen, McKenzie Joanne E, Hamilton Daniel G, Moher David, Tugwell Peter, Fidler Fiona M, Haddaway Neal R, Higgins Julian P T, Kanukula Raju, Karunananthan Sathya, Maxwell Lara J, McDonald Steve, Nakagawa Shinichi, Nunan David, Welch Vivian A, Page Matthew J
Methods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Australia.
MetaMelb Research Group, School of BioSciences University of Melbourne Melbourne Australia.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2023 Apr 10;1(2):e12009. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12009. eCollection 2023 Apr.
BACKGROUND: Replication is essential to the scientific method. It is unclear what systematic reviewers think about the replication of systematic reviews (SRs). Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on (a) the definition and importance of SR replication; (b) incentives and barriers to conducting SR replication; and (c) a checklist to guide when to replicate an SR. METHODS: We searched PubMed for SRs published from January to April 2021, from which we randomly allocated 50% to this survey and 50% to another survey on data sharing in SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs ( = 4669) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free-text answers were coded using an inductive approach. RESULTS: The response rate was 9% ( = 409). Most participants considered "replication of SRs" as redoing an SR (68%) or reanalyzing originally collected data (61%), using the same or similar methods. Participants also considered updating an SR, either one's own (42%) or others (43%), equivalent to replication. Most participants agreed that replication of SRs is important (89%). Although 54% of participants reported having conducted a replication of a SR, only 22% have published a replication within 5 years. Those who published a replication ( = 89) often found their replication supported (47%) or expanded the generalizability of the original review (51%). The most common perceived barriers to replicating SRs were difficulty publishing (75%), less prestige (65%), fewer citations (56%), and less impact on career advancement (55%) compared to conducting an original SR. A checklist to assess the need for replication was deemed useful (79%) and easy to apply in practice (69%) by participants. CONCLUSION: Reviewers have various perceptions of what constitutes a replication of SRs. Reviewers see replication as important and valuable but perceive several barriers to conducting replications. Institutional support should be better communicated to reviewers to address these perceptions.
背景：重复是科学方法的核心要素。目前尚不清楚系统评价者对系统评价（SR）重复的看法。因此，我们旨在探讨系统评价者对以下方面的看法：（a）SR重复的定义和重要性；（b）进行SR重复的激励因素和障碍；（c）指导何时重复SR的清单。 方法：我们在PubMed中检索了2021年1月至4月发表的SR，从中随机分配50%用于本次调查，50%用于另一项关于SR数据共享的调查。我们使用Qualtrics向这些SR的作者（n = 4669）发送了电子调查问卷。定量回答采用频率分析进行总结。自由文本答案采用归纳法进行编码。 结果：回复率为9%（n = 409）。大多数参与者认为“SR重复”是指使用相同或相似的方法重新进行SR（68%）或重新分析原始收集的数据（61%）。参与者还认为更新自己（42%）或他人（43%）的SR等同于重复。大多数参与者同意SR重复很重要（89%）。尽管54%的参与者报告曾进行过SR重复，但只有22%的人在5年内发表了重复研究。发表重复研究的人（n = 89）通常发现他们的重复研究得到了支持（47%）或扩展了原始综述的普遍性（51%）。与进行原始SR相比，重复SR最常见的障碍是发表困难（75%）、声望较低（65%）、引用较少（56%）以及对职业发展的影响较小（55%）。参与者认为评估重复必要性的清单很有用（79%）且易于在实践中应用（69%）。 结论：评价者对SR重复的构成有不同的看法。评价者认为重复很重要且有价值，但也意识到进行重复存在一些障碍。应更好地向评价者传达机构支持，以解决这些看法。
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2023-4-10
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2023-4-10
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021-10-30
PLoS One. 2010-4-1
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-11-14
Annu Rev Psychol. 2022-1-4
Elife. 2020-11-19
Zotero 插件