首页 > 最新文献

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献

英文 中文
Adherence to PRISMA 2020 statement assessed through the expanded checklist in systematic reviews of interventions: A meta-epidemiological study 通过干预措施系统综述中的扩展核对表评估 PRISMA 2020 声明的遵守情况：荟萃流行病学研究
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Pub Date : 2024-05-23 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12074
Diego Ivaldi, Mariana Burgos, Gisela Oltra, Camila E. Liquitay, Luis Garegnani

Introduction

The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Due to the suboptimal reporting of the 2009 version, an update was performed and published in 2021. Despite having been evaluated in studies published before its publication, its adherence in SRs of interventions published after 2021 remains unclear.

Objective

To assess PRISMA 2020 statement adherence and its uptake in SRs of interventions.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study searching MEDLINE (PubMed), including a 10% random sample of all SRs involving human interventions published since January 2022 retrieved by our search process. We did not apply any restrictions. We assessed PRISMA 2020 statement uptake and its adherence using its expanded checklist.

Results

We included 222 out of 945 studies. 67 (30.18%) used PRISMA 2020 statement. None adhered completely, with an average adherence of 42.64% (Min–Max: 14.29%–76.19%). Results and Methods sections had low adherence, with 40.57% (Min–Max: 10.45%–98.51%) and 25.55% (Min–Max: 7.46%–55.22%) respectively. The items with the least adherence were: certainty and reporting bias assessment, excluded studies characteristics and search strategy with 7.46% (5/67), 8.96% (6/67), 10.45% (7/67), and 11.94% (8/67) respectively.

Discussion

As in previous studies, our study showed low adherence, mainly to the methods and results sections. However, our study showed a lower adherence, probably due to the use of the expanded checklist to assessed the tools adherence.

Conclusion

We found a low adherence rate to the PRISMA 2020 expanded checklist. Further PRISMA dissemination and targeted audience training are needed to improve SR reporting and quality.

导言 系统综述和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）声明是为了改进系统综述（SR）和荟萃分析的报告而制定的。由于 2009 年版本的报告效果不佳，我们对其进行了更新，并于 2021 年出版。尽管在该版本发布前已对发表的研究进行了评估，但在 2021 年后发表的干预措施 SR 中，该版本的遵守情况仍不明确。 目的 评估 PRISMA 2020 声明的遵守情况及其在干预SR中的应用情况。 方法 我们进行了一项前瞻性横断面研究，搜索了 MEDLINE (PubMed)，包括搜索过程中检索到的自 2022 年 1 月以来发表的所有涉及人类干预的 SR，随机抽样 10%。我们没有施加任何限制。我们使用扩展检查表评估了 PRISMA 2020 声明的采纳情况及其遵守情况。 结果 我们纳入了 945 项研究中的 222 项。67项（30.18%）使用了PRISMA 2020声明。没有一项完全遵守，平均遵守率为 42.64%（最小值-最大值：14.29%-76.19%）。结果和方法部分的遵守率较低，分别为 40.57%（最小值-最大值：10.45%-98.51%）和 25.55%（最小值-最大值：7.46%-55.22%）。坚持率最低的项目是：确定性和报告偏倚评估、排除研究特征和检索策略，分别为 7.46%（5/67）、8.96%（6/67）、10.45%（7/67）和 11.94%（8/67）。 讨论 与之前的研究一样，我们的研究也显示出较低的依从性，主要是对方法和结果部分的依从性较低。然而，我们的研究显示出较低的依从性，这可能是由于使用了扩展核对表来评估工具的依从性。 结论 我们发现 PRISMA 2020 扩展核对表的遵循率较低。需要进一步推广 PRISMA 并对受众进行有针对性的培训，以提高 SR 报告的质量。
{"title":"Adherence to PRISMA 2020 statement assessed through the expanded checklist in systematic reviews of interventions: A meta-epidemiological study","authors":"Diego Ivaldi,&nbsp;Mariana Burgos,&nbsp;Gisela Oltra,&nbsp;Camila E. Liquitay,&nbsp;Luis Garegnani","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12074","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Due to the suboptimal reporting of the 2009 version, an update was performed and published in 2021. Despite having been evaluated in studies published before its publication, its adherence in SRs of interventions published after 2021 remains unclear.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess PRISMA 2020 statement adherence and its uptake in SRs of interventions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study searching MEDLINE (PubMed), including a 10% random sample of all SRs involving human interventions published since January 2022 retrieved by our search process. We did not apply any restrictions. We assessed PRISMA 2020 statement uptake and its adherence using its expanded checklist.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included 222 out of 945 studies. 67 (30.18%) used PRISMA 2020 statement. None adhered completely, with an average adherence of 42.64% (Min–Max: 14.29%–76.19%). Results and Methods sections had low adherence, with 40.57% (Min–Max: 10.45%–98.51%) and 25.55% (Min–Max: 7.46%–55.22%) respectively. The items with the least adherence were: certainty and reporting bias assessment, excluded studies characteristics and search strategy with 7.46% (5/67), 8.96% (6/67), 10.45% (7/67), and 11.94% (8/67) respectively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>As in previous studies, our study showed low adherence, mainly to the methods and results sections. However, our study showed a lower adherence, probably due to the use of the expanded checklist to assessed the tools adherence.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We found a low adherence rate to the PRISMA 2020 expanded checklist. Further PRISMA dissemination and targeted audience training are needed to improve SR reporting and quality.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12074","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141085071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Intention-to-treat analyses and missing outcome data: A tutorial 意向治疗分析和缺失结果数据：教程
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Pub Date : 2024-05-21 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12075
Marty Chaplin, Kerry Dwan

This tutorial focuses on “intention-to-treat” analyses and missing outcome data in systematic reviews. There is a lack of consensus on the definition of the ITT approach. We will explain the principles of an intention-to-treat analysis, and outline the key issues you need to consider when planning, conducting and writing up your systematic review.

The authors of studies included in systematic reviews may use the term “intention-to-treat” or “intent-to-treat” (ITT) to describe the approach taken when reporting and analyzing outcome data. The ITT approach has two principles.

Principle A: Outcome data are reported and/or analysed according to the participant's assigned intervention, regardless of the intervention they actually received or their adherence to their assigned intervention. For randomised controlled trials, this approach is sometimes referred to as an “as-randomised” analysis.

Study authors make decisions about which approach to take based on whether they are interested in determining the effect of allocation to an intervention (regardless of whether the intervention was received as intended), the effect of receiving an intervention, or the effect of adhering to an intervention (as specified in the trial protocol).

Principle B: Outcome data are measured for all randomised participants.

If some participants do not contribute data for the outcome of interest at the required follow-up time (i.e., there are missing outcome data), data may be imputed. Various imputation methods are available, from simply assuming that all participants with missing data had a particular outcome (e.g., study authors may assume that all participants with missing data experienced a poor outcome, such as treatment failure), to more complex methods such as multiple imputation.

This principle is not met if study authors report and/or analyze outcome data only for participants with nonmissing outcome data (this approach is sometimes referred to as a “complete-case analysis”).

When choosing whether to ignore or impute missing data, and when selecting an imputation method, study authors should consider whether missing data are likely to be “missing at random” or not. Data are “missing at random” if the fact that the data are missing is unrelated to the true data values. Complete-case analyses, and some imputation methods, may lead to biased results if the missing data is “missing not at random.” Table 1 provides examples of data that are “missing at random” and data that are “missing not at random.”

There is no consensus on the definition of the ITT approach [1, 2]. Some study authors use the term ITT when applying both principles; others use the term when applying just one principle. Study authors may use the term “modified ITT” approach, which also has no consistent definition. The estimated intervention effect in a study may be impacted by the study author's choice of ITT approach. If this

本教程的重点是系统综述中的 "意向治疗 "分析和结果数据缺失。目前对 ITT 方法的定义还缺乏共识。我们将解释意向治疗分析的原则，并概述您在计划、开展和撰写系统综述时需要考虑的关键问题。纳入系统综述的研究的作者可能会使用 "意向治疗 "或 "意向治疗"（ITT）来描述报告和分析结果数据时所采用的方法。ITT 方法有两个原则：原则 A：结果数据的报告和/或分析是根据受试者指定的干预措施进行的，与受试者实际接受的干预措施或对指定干预措施的依从性无关。对于随机对照试验，这种方法有时也被称为 "随机 "分析。研究作者在决定采取哪种方法时，会根据他们是否有兴趣确定分配到干预措施的效果（无论是否按计划接受了干预措施）、接受干预措施的效果或坚持干预措施的效果（如试验方案中规定的那样）、原则 B：对所有随机参与者的结果数据进行测量。有多种估算方法可供选择，包括简单地假设所有数据缺失的参与者都有特定的结果（例如，研究作者可以假设所有参与者都有特定的结果）、如果研究作者只报告和/或分析未缺失结果数据的参与者的结果数据（这种方法有时被称为 "完整病例分析"），则不符合这一原则。在选择忽略还是估算缺失数据以及选择估算方法时，研究作者应考虑缺失数据是否可能是 "随机缺失"。如果数据缺失的事实与真实数据值无关，那么数据就是 "随机缺失 "的。如果缺失数据是 "非随机缺失"，则完整案例分析和某些估算方法可能会导致结果偏差。表 1 举例说明了 "随机缺失 "数据和 "非随机缺失 "数据。"ITT 方法 "的定义尚未达成共识[1, 2]。一些研究作者在应用这两项原则时使用 ITT 一词，而另一些作者在只应用一项原则时则使用 ITT 一词。研究作者可能会使用 "改良 ITT "方法，该方法也没有统一的定义。一项研究中估计的干预效果可能会受到研究作者选择的 ITT 方法的影响。如果将该研究纳入系统综述，汇总结果和综述结论也可能受到影响。理想情况下，研究作者在提及 ITT 或修改后的 ITT 方法时，会明确说明这些术语的含义。如果您在研究方案中使用了 "ITT "一词，请明确定义该词的含义。首先，请说明您是想确定分配的效果还是对特定干预措施的依从性。如果您对确定干预分配的效果感兴趣，那么您应该说明，在可能的情况下，您打算提取根据参与者分配的干预进行报告和/或分析的结果数据，而不管他们实际接受了哪种干预，也不管他们是否坚持干预。如果您想确定坚持干预的效果，则应说明您打算从估计每方案效果的分析中提取结果数据（参见《Cochrane 手册》[1] 第 8.2.2 节，讨论估计每方案效果的不同方法以及与这些方法相关的偏差）。适当的方法可能取决于替代分析集所包含的参与者人数与您首选分析集所包含的参与者人数是否存在差异，以至于可能对研究结果产生重大影响。适当的方法可能取决于多种因素，包括缺失数据的程度、研究作者的估算方法（如适用），以及完整病例分析结果（如可用）是否可能因结果数据缺失而存在高偏倚风险。 尽管在撰写综述方案时考虑上述问题非常重要，但在确定研究、提取数据和评估偏倚风险之后，再就综述方法做出一些决定可能会比较合适。您可以在完成综述撰写时概述所选方法并说明理由。仔细检查纳入研究的出版物（包括统计方法部分、参与者流程图和结果表），以确定分析采用了哪些 ITT 原则（如果有的话）。如果论文中提供的信息没有明确说明采用的方法，您可以联系研究的作者。如果您无法与作者澄清分析方法，则应决定是将数据纳入分析（并进行敏感性分析，探讨纳入数据对结果的影响），还是将数据排除在分析之外（并以表格或叙述的方式呈现数据）。ROB2[3]（针对 RCT）和 ROBINS-I[4]（针对干预措施的非随机研究）对一个领域（"偏离预期干预措施导致的偏倚"）的评估根据您是否有兴趣确定分配或坚持干预措施的效果（如您的综述方案中所述）而有所不同。这些工具还可以解决因结果数据缺失而导致的偏倚风险。回答 ROB2 和 ROBINS-I 中的信号问题很可能会指导您决定在综述中采用何种适当的分析方法。有关这两种工具的详细指南（www.riskofbias.info）。如果您在综述中使用 "ITT "一词，请明确定义该词的含义。如果您在综述中使用了 "ITT "一词，请明确定义该术语的含义。读者应清楚地了解，所纳入研究的数据是采用 "随机 "方法还是 "按治疗/按方案 "方法进行分析的，以及如何处理缺失的结果数据。如果您自己对任何缺失数据进行了估算，请指明您对哪些研究进行了估算，并提供所用估算方法的详细信息。如果您在综述过程中决定是否在分析中纳入或排除数据，或者是否进行了估算，请提供这些决定的理由。方法部分、结果部分和分析脚注都可以用来确保方法的透明度。您还应在 "方案与综述之间的差异 "标题下概述对方案中指定方法的任何更新。Altman 教授和 Bland 教授在 BMJ "统计说明 "系列中讨论了缺失数据[5]。Cochrane Training制作了一个微型学习模块[6]，演示了缺失二分法结果数据的一种简单估算方法[7]和缺失连续法结果数据的一种简单估算方法[8]（图1）：构思；写作-原稿；写作-审阅和编辑。Kerry Dwan：作者声明无利益冲突。
{"title":"Intention-to-treat analyses and missing outcome data: A tutorial","authors":"Marty Chaplin,&nbsp;Kerry Dwan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12075","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This tutorial focuses on “intention-to-treat” analyses and missing outcome data in systematic reviews. There is a lack of consensus on the definition of the ITT approach. We will explain the principles of an intention-to-treat analysis, and outline the key issues you need to consider when planning, conducting and writing up your systematic review.</p><p>The authors of studies included in systematic reviews may use the term “intention-to-treat” or “intent-to-treat” (ITT) to describe the approach taken when reporting and analyzing outcome data. The ITT approach has two principles.</p><p><i>Principle A: Outcome data are reported and/or analysed according to the participant's assigned intervention, regardless of the intervention they actually received or their adherence to their assigned intervention. For randomised controlled trials, this approach is sometimes referred to as an “as-randomised” analysis</i>.</p><p>Study authors make decisions about which approach to take based on whether they are interested in determining the effect of allocation to an intervention (regardless of whether the intervention was received as intended), the effect of receiving an intervention, or the effect of adhering to an intervention (as specified in the trial protocol).</p><p><i>Principle B: Outcome data are measured for all randomised participants</i>.</p><p>If some participants do not contribute data for the outcome of interest at the required follow-up time (i.e., there are missing outcome data), data may be imputed. Various imputation methods are available, from simply assuming that all participants with missing data had a particular outcome (e.g., study authors may assume that all participants with missing data experienced a poor outcome, such as treatment failure), to more complex methods such as multiple imputation.</p><p>This principle is not met if study authors report and/or analyze outcome data only for participants with nonmissing outcome data (this approach is sometimes referred to as a “complete-case analysis”).</p><p>When choosing whether to ignore or impute missing data, and when selecting an imputation method, study authors should consider whether missing data are likely to be “missing at random” or not. Data are “missing at random” if the fact that the data are missing is unrelated to the true data values. Complete-case analyses, and some imputation methods, may lead to biased results if the missing data is “missing not at random.” Table 1 provides examples of data that are “missing at random” and data that are “missing not at random.”</p><p>There is no consensus on the definition of the ITT approach [<span>1, 2</span>]. Some study authors use the term ITT when applying both principles; others use the term when applying just one principle. Study authors may use the term “modified ITT” approach, which also has no consistent definition. The estimated intervention effect in a study may be impacted by the study author's choice of ITT approach. If this","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12075","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141078933","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Development of a topic-specific bibliographic database supporting the updates of SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 开发专题文献数据库，支持更新 SPIRIT 2013 和 CONSORT 2010
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Pub Date : 2024-05-15 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12057
Lasse Østengaard, Ariel Barrientos, Isabelle Boutron, An-Wen Chan, Gary Collins, Sally Hopewell, David Moher, Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard, Kenneth F. Schulz, Benjamin Speich, Evan Tang, Ruth Tunn, Nozomi Watanabe, Chenchen Xu, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson

Introduction

An important mechanism of research waste is inadequate incorporation of, and references to, previous relevant research. Identifying references for a research manuscript can be challenging, in part due to the exponential rise in potentially relevant literature to consider. For large research projects, such as developing or updating reporting guidelines, it may be helpful to construct a supportive topic-specific bibliographic database.

Methods

In support of updating the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010, we developed the SPIRIT-CONSORT Evidence Bibliographic database (SCEBdb): a freely available topic-specific bibliographic database of publications providing an evidence foundation for the updates. We searched multiple sources of potential publications and tagged included ones with database-specific keywords. For context, we also formulated 10 core considerations for constructing topic-specific bibliographic databases and identified and described 5 illustrative other databases.

Results

As of April 2024, the SCEBdb included 846 publications. The database proved useful as a supplementary information source for our scoping review of published comments on SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, for a supplementary Delphi process, and in the writing phase of the guidance documents. We expect that the database will be useful for future projects within the fields of clinical research methodology, bias, evidence synthesis, and randomized trials.

Conclusion

The methods involved in constructing the SCEBdb, and our suggested core considerations for topic-specific bibliographic databases, could be helpful for researchers reflecting on whether, and how, to develop a topic-specific bibliographic database.

引言 造成研究浪费的一个重要机制是没有充分吸收和引用以前的相关研究。为研究手稿确定参考文献可能具有挑战性，部分原因是需要考虑的潜在相关文献呈指数级增长。对于大型研究项目，如制定或更新报告指南，建立一个支持性的特定主题书目数据库可能会有所帮助。 方法 为支持更新标准方案项目：2013》（SPIRIT）和《2010 年试验报告标准》（CONSORT）的更新，我们开发了 SPIRIT-CONSORT 证据书目数据库（SCEBdb）：这是一个可免费获取的特定主题书目数据库，收录了为更新提供证据基础的出版物。我们搜索了潜在出版物的多种来源，并用数据库特定的关键词标记了收录的出版物。为了解背景情况，我们还制定了构建特定主题书目数据库的 10 个核心注意事项，并确定和描述了 5 个其他说明性数据库。 结果 截至 2024 年 4 月，SCEBdb 共收录了 846 篇出版物。事实证明，该数据库是我们对已发表的关于 SPIRIT 2013 和 CONSORT 2010 的评论进行范围界定审查的补充信息来源，也是德尔菲补充过程和指导文件编写阶段的有用信息来源。我们希望该数据库对临床研究方法学、偏倚、证据综合和随机试验领域的未来项目有所帮助。 结论 构建 SCEBdb 所涉及的方法以及我们建议的特定主题书目数据库的核心考虑因素，可能有助于研究人员思考是否以及如何开发特定主题书目数据库。
{"title":"Development of a topic-specific bibliographic database supporting the updates of SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010","authors":"Lasse Østengaard,&nbsp;Ariel Barrientos,&nbsp;Isabelle Boutron,&nbsp;An-Wen Chan,&nbsp;Gary Collins,&nbsp;Sally Hopewell,&nbsp;David Moher,&nbsp;Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard,&nbsp;Kenneth F. Schulz,&nbsp;Benjamin Speich,&nbsp;Evan Tang,&nbsp;Ruth Tunn,&nbsp;Nozomi Watanabe,&nbsp;Chenchen Xu,&nbsp;Asbjørn Hróbjartsson","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12057","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An important mechanism of research waste is inadequate incorporation of, and references to, previous relevant research. Identifying references for a research manuscript can be challenging, in part due to the exponential rise in potentially relevant literature to consider. For large research projects, such as developing or updating reporting guidelines, it may be helpful to construct a supportive topic-specific bibliographic database.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In support of updating the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010, we developed the SPIRIT-CONSORT Evidence Bibliographic database (SCEBdb): a freely available topic-specific bibliographic database of publications providing an evidence foundation for the updates. We searched multiple sources of potential publications and tagged included ones with database-specific keywords. For context, we also formulated 10 core considerations for constructing topic-specific bibliographic databases and identified and described 5 illustrative other databases.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>As of April 2024, the SCEBdb included 846 publications. The database proved useful as a supplementary information source for our scoping review of published comments on SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, for a supplementary Delphi process, and in the writing phase of the guidance documents. We expect that the database will be useful for future projects within the fields of clinical research methodology, bias, evidence synthesis, and randomized trials.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The methods involved in constructing the SCEBdb, and our suggested core considerations for topic-specific bibliographic databases, could be helpful for researchers reflecting on whether, and how, to develop a topic-specific bibliographic database.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12057","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140924824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology 皮肤病学系统综述和荟萃分析的质量
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Pub Date : 2024-05-02 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12056
Annapoorani Muthiah, Loch Kith Lee, John Koh, Ashly Liu, Aidan Tan

Introduction

Although the number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology has increased over the past decade, their quality is unknown.

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine the change in risk of bias, methodological quality and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology between 2010 and 2019.

Methods

We conducted a comparative study of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the 10 highest-ranked dermatology journals in 2010 and 2019. Studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other bibliographic databases. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed in duplicate with the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) tools, respectively, with the latter only applied to studies of interventions. Reporting quality was assessed with the Preferred Reporting Items of systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 and PRISMA for abstracts (PRISMA-A) 2013 statements.

Results

We included 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2010 and 127 published in 2019. There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses at high/unclear risk of bias with ROBIS (Fisher's exact test = 1.00) or critically low methodological quality using AMSTAR-2 (Fisher's exact test = 0.456), between 2010 and 2019. There was evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA (t(26) = 2.7, p = 0.01), and very strong evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA-A (t(26) = 4.2, p < 0.001) checklist items adequately reported between 2010 and 2019. The difference in mean proportion of PRISMA checklist items adequately reported was 3.6 items more (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8–5.4 items more) in 2019 (mean = 10.7 items, SD = 2.4 items) than in 2010 (mean = 7.1 items, SD = 2.9 items), and of PRISMA-A checklist items adequately reported was 1.1 items more (95% CI: 0.2–2.0 items more) in 2019 (mean = 5.6 items, SD = 1.5 items) than in 2010 (mean = 4.4 items, SD = 1.7 items)

Conclusions

No improvement was observed in the overall methodological quality of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, there was strong evidenc

引言 尽管在过去十年中发表的皮肤病学系统综述和荟萃分析的数量有所增加，但其质量却不为人知。 目的 本研究旨在确定 2010 年至 2019 年间皮肤科系统综述和荟萃分析的偏倚风险、方法学质量和报告质量的变化。 方法 我们对 2010 年和 2019 年在 10 种排名最高的皮肤病学期刊上发表的系统综述和荟萃分析进行了比较研究。通过对 MEDLINE、Embase 和其他 8 个文献数据库进行电子检索，确定了相关研究。偏倚风险和方法学质量分别采用系统综述偏倚风险工具（ROBIS）和系统综述评估工具-2（AMSTAR-2）进行评估，后者仅适用于干预研究。报告质量采用 2009 年系统性综述和 Meta 分析首选报告项目 (PRISMA) 和 2013 年摘要首选报告项目 (PRISMA-A) 声明进行评估。 结果 我们纳入了 27 篇 2010 年发表的系统综述和荟萃分析，以及 127 篇 2019 年发表的系统综述和荟萃分析。2010年和2019年之间，没有证据表明使用ROBIS（费雪精确检验=1.00）进行的偏倚风险高/不明确的系统综述和荟萃分析的比例存在差异，也没有证据表明使用AMSTAR-2（费雪精确检验=0.456）进行的方法学质量极低的系统综述和荟萃分析的比例存在差异。有证据表明，2010 年和 2019 年之间，充分报告 PRISMA（t(26) = 2.7，p = 0.01）的比例存在差异，有非常有力的证据表明，充分报告 PRISMA-A （t(26) = 4.2，p < 0.001）核对表项目的比例存在差异。与 2010 年（平均 = 7.1 项，SD = 2.9 项）相比，2019 年（平均 = 10.7 项，SD = 2.4 项）充分报告的 PRISMA 核对表项目的平均比例多 3.6 项（95% 置信区间 [CI]：多 1.8-5.4 项），2019 年（平均 = 5.6 项，SD = 1.5 项）比 2010 年（平均 = 4.4 项，SD = 1.7 项）多 1.1 项（95% CI：多 0.2-2.0 项） 结论 未观察到纳入的系统综述和荟萃分析的总体方法学质量有所改善；但是，有强有力的证据表明总体报告质量有所改善。
{"title":"Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology","authors":"Annapoorani Muthiah,&nbsp;Loch Kith Lee,&nbsp;John Koh,&nbsp;Ashly Liu,&nbsp;Aidan Tan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12056","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Although the number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology has increased over the past decade, their quality is unknown.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The objective of this study was to determine the change in risk of bias, methodological quality and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology between 2010 and 2019.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted a comparative study of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the 10 highest-ranked dermatology journals in 2010 and 2019. Studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other bibliographic databases. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed in duplicate with the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) tools, respectively, with the latter only applied to studies of interventions. Reporting quality was assessed with the Preferred Reporting Items of systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 and PRISMA for abstracts (PRISMA-A) 2013 statements.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2010 and 127 published in 2019. There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses at high/unclear risk of bias with ROBIS (Fisher's exact test = 1.00) or critically low methodological quality using AMSTAR-2 (Fisher's exact test = 0.456), between 2010 and 2019. There was evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA (<i>t</i>(26) = 2.7, <i>p</i> = 0.01), and very strong evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA-A (<i>t</i>(26) = 4.2, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) checklist items adequately reported between 2010 and 2019. The difference in mean proportion of PRISMA checklist items adequately reported was 3.6 items more (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8–5.4 items more) in 2019 (mean = 10.7 items, SD = 2.4 items) than in 2010 (mean = 7.1 items, SD = 2.9 items), and of PRISMA-A checklist items adequately reported was 1.1 items more (95% CI: 0.2–2.0 items more) in 2019 (mean = 5.6 items, SD = 1.5 items) than in 2010 (mean = 4.4 items, SD = 1.7 items)</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>No improvement was observed in the overall methodological quality of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, there was strong evidenc","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12056","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140819017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The effects of public health and social measures (PHSM) implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: An overview of systematic reviews 在 COVID-19 大流行期间实施的公共卫生和社会措施 (PHSM) 的效果：系统回顾综述
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Pub Date : 2024-04-29 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12055
Racha Fadlallah, Fadi El-Jardali, Lama Bou Karroum, Nour Kalach, Reem Hoteit, Andrew Aoun, Lara Al-Hakim, Francisca Verdugo-Paiva, Gabriel Rada, Atle Fretheim, Simon Lewin, Ramona Ludolph, Elie A. Akl

Introduction

To systematically review the effectiveness and unintended health and socioeconomic consequences of public health and social measures (PHSM) aimed at reducing the scale and risk of transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

This review followed guidance about overviews of reviews in the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions and used the Epistemonikos database's COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence repository as a primary search source. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) checklist.

Results

A total of 94 reviews were included, of which eight (9%) had “moderate” to “high” confidence ratings on the AMSTAR 2. Of 16 reviews (17%) reporting applying the GRADE framework, none found high certainty evidence for any of our outcomes of interest. Across the 94 reviews, the most frequently examined PHSM were personal protection (n = 18, 19%). Within multicomponent interventions, so-called “lockdown” was the most frequently examined component (n = 39, 41%). The most frequently reported outcome category was non-COVID-19-related health outcomes (n = 58, 62%). Only five (5%) reviews reported on socioeconomic outcomes. Findings from the eight reviews with moderate or high confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2 are narratively summarized. There is low-certainty evidence that multicomponent interventions may reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in different settings. For active surveillance and response measures, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine testing of residents and staff in long-term care facilities may reduce the number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among residents. We found very low-certainty evidence about the effectiveness of personal protection measures, travel-related control measures, and environmental measures. Unintended consequences were rarely examined by those eight reviews.

Conclusion

We found predominantly low- to very low-certainty evidence regarding the effectiveness and unintended consequences of PHSM in controlling the risk and scale of COVID-19 transmission. There is a need to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews.

引言 系统综述旨在降低2019年冠状病毒疾病（COVID-19）传播规模和风险的公共卫生和社会措施（PHSM）的有效性及其对健康和社会经济造成的意外后果。 方法 本综述遵循《科克伦干预措施系统综述手册》中关于综述的指导，并将 Epistemonikos 数据库的 COVID-19 活体证据综述库作为主要检索来源。方法学质量采用系统性综述评估工具（AMSTAR 2）清单进行评估。 结果 共纳入了 94 篇综述，其中 8 篇（9%）在 AMSTAR 2 中获得了 "中 "至 "高 "的置信度评级。在 16 篇（17%）采用 GRADE 框架进行报告的综述中，没有一篇综述为我们所关注的任何结果找到确定性较高的证据。在 94 篇综述中，最常研究的 PHSM 是个人防护（n = 18，19%）。在多成分干预中，所谓的 "封锁 "是最常被研究的成分（n = 39，41%）。报告最多的结果类别是与 COVID-19 无关的健康结果（n = 58，62%）。只有五篇（5%）综述报告了社会经济成果。现对 AMSTAR 2 中置信度为中或高的八篇综述的研究结果进行叙述性总结。有低确定性证据表明，多成分干预措施可在不同环境中减少 COVID-19 的传播。在主动监测和应对措施方面，低确定性证据表明，对长期护理机构中的居民和员工进行常规检测可减少居民的感染、住院和死亡人数。我们发现关于个人防护措施、旅行相关控制措施和环境措施有效性的证据确定性很低。这八篇综述很少对意外后果进行研究。 结论 我们发现有关 PHSM 在控制 COVID-19 传播风险和规模方面的有效性和意外后果的证据主要为低确定性到极低确定性。有必要改进系统综述的进行和报告。
{"title":"The effects of public health and social measures (PHSM) implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: An overview of systematic reviews","authors":"Racha Fadlallah,&nbsp;Fadi El-Jardali,&nbsp;Lama Bou Karroum,&nbsp;Nour Kalach,&nbsp;Reem Hoteit,&nbsp;Andrew Aoun,&nbsp;Lara Al-Hakim,&nbsp;Francisca Verdugo-Paiva,&nbsp;Gabriel Rada,&nbsp;Atle Fretheim,&nbsp;Simon Lewin,&nbsp;Ramona Ludolph,&nbsp;Elie A. Akl","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12055","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To systematically review the effectiveness and unintended health and socioeconomic consequences of public health and social measures (PHSM) aimed at reducing the scale and risk of transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This review followed guidance about overviews of reviews in the <i>Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions</i> and used the Epistemonikos database's COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence repository as a primary search source. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) checklist.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 94 reviews were included, of which eight (9%) had “moderate” to “high” confidence ratings on the AMSTAR 2. Of 16 reviews (17%) reporting applying the GRADE framework, none found high certainty evidence for any of our outcomes of interest. Across the 94 reviews, the most frequently examined PHSM were personal protection (<i>n</i> = 18, 19%). Within multicomponent interventions, so-called “lockdown” was the most frequently examined component (<i>n</i> = 39, 41%). The most frequently reported outcome category was non-COVID-19-related health outcomes (<i>n</i> = 58, 62%). Only five (5%) reviews reported on socioeconomic outcomes. Findings from the eight reviews with moderate or high confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2 are narratively summarized. There is low-certainty evidence that multicomponent interventions may reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in different settings. For active surveillance and response measures, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine testing of residents and staff in long-term care facilities may reduce the number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among residents. We found very low-certainty evidence about the effectiveness of personal protection measures, travel-related control measures, and environmental measures. Unintended consequences were rarely examined by those eight reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We found predominantly low- to very low-certainty evidence regarding the effectiveness and unintended consequences of PHSM in controlling the risk and scale of COVID-19 transmission. There is a need to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140814153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A simple form could prevent authorship issues in Cochrane manuscripts: A cohort study 一份简单的表格就能避免 Cochrane 手稿中的作者身份问题：一项队列研究
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Pub Date : 2024-04-05 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12053
Siv Fonnes, Kristoffer Andresen, Stina Öberg, Jason Joe Baker, Jacob Rosenberg

Aim

We aimed to investigate authorship issues after the implementation of an authorship declaration form in a Cochrane Review Group.

Methods

The Cochrane Colorectal Group uses an authorship declaration form that consists of three parts: (1) manuscript information, (2) documentation for roles according to the four authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and (3) identification information of individual authors and signed approval. The manuscripts' contact authors were responsible for collecting the forms from all coauthors. This observational cohort study reports on all authorship issues in authorship declaration forms collected from February 2020 to December 2023.

Results

We received 276/277 authorship declaration forms or replies from authors (response rate 99.6%) from 44 manuscripts, including 52% protocols and 48% reviews. There were authorship issues present in 14/44 (32%) of the manuscripts, and the most common issue was that not all authors fulfilled all four ICMJE authorship criteria. Six gift authors were removed from by-lines. Issues in nine of the 14 manuscripts were resolved by the author group when informing them about the ICMJE authorship criteria and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The issues in the remaining five manuscripts were unresolved since the manuscripts were transferred or rejected, thus, ceased to be developed by the Cochrane Colorectal Group.

Conclusion

Authorship issues were raised in almost one-third of manuscripts. Most issues were resolved and six gift authorships were prevented. The awareness of authorship criteria is sharpened when all authors are individually asked to fill out and sign a form. This could help decrease the rate of unethical authorships in Cochrane publications and contribute to more ethical and robust evidence production.

目的 我们旨在调查科克伦综述组实施作者声明表后的作者身份问题。 方法 Cochrane 大肠癌组使用的作者声明表由三部分组成：(1) 手稿信息；(2) 根据国际医学期刊编辑委员会 (ICMJE) 的四项作者标准提供的角色文件；(3) 作者个人身份信息和签字认可。稿件的联系作者负责收集所有共同作者的表格。本观察性队列研究报告了 2020 年 2 月至 2023 年 12 月期间收集的作者声明表中的所有作者身份问题。 结果 我们收到了来自44篇稿件的276/277份作者声明表或作者回复（回复率99.6%），其中52%为规程，48%为综述。14/44篇稿件（32%）存在作者身份问题，最常见的问题是并非所有作者都符合ICMJE的四项作者身份标准。有六位赠与作者被删除。14 篇稿件中，有 9 篇稿件中的问题在告知作者组 ICMJE 作者资格标准和出版伦理委员会 (COPE) 的指导后得到了解决。其余 5 篇稿件中的问题因被转移或拒绝而未得到解决，因此，科克伦结直肠组不再对其进行开发。 结论 近三分之一的稿件存在作者身份问题。大多数问题都得到了解决，有六篇稿件的作者身份被阻止。当所有作者都被要求填写并签署一份表格时，对作者身份标准的认识就会更加清晰。这将有助于降低 Cochrane 出版物中不道德作者的比例，并促进更道德、更可靠的证据生产。
{"title":"A simple form could prevent authorship issues in Cochrane manuscripts: A cohort study","authors":"Siv Fonnes,&nbsp;Kristoffer Andresen,&nbsp;Stina Öberg,&nbsp;Jason Joe Baker,&nbsp;Jacob Rosenberg","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12053","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aim</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We aimed to investigate authorship issues after the implementation of an authorship declaration form in a Cochrane Review Group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The Cochrane Colorectal Group uses an authorship declaration form that consists of three parts: (1) manuscript information, (2) documentation for roles according to the four authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and (3) identification information of individual authors and signed approval. The manuscripts' contact authors were responsible for collecting the forms from all coauthors. This observational cohort study reports on all authorship issues in authorship declaration forms collected from February 2020 to December 2023.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We received 276/277 authorship declaration forms or replies from authors (response rate 99.6%) from 44 manuscripts, including 52% protocols and 48% reviews. There were authorship issues present in 14/44 (32%) of the manuscripts, and the most common issue was that not all authors fulfilled all four ICMJE authorship criteria. Six gift authors were removed from by-lines. Issues in nine of the 14 manuscripts were resolved by the author group when informing them about the ICMJE authorship criteria and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The issues in the remaining five manuscripts were unresolved since the manuscripts were transferred or rejected, thus, ceased to be developed by the Cochrane Colorectal Group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Authorship issues were raised in almost one-third of manuscripts. Most issues were resolved and six gift authorships were prevented. The awareness of authorship criteria is sharpened when all authors are individually asked to fill out and sign a form. This could help decrease the rate of unethical authorships in Cochrane publications and contribute to more ethical and robust evidence production.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12053","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140348821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Publication barriers and facilitators of Cochrane authors in sub-Saharan Africa: A mixed-methods study 撒哈拉以南非洲科克伦作者的发表障碍和促进因素：混合方法研究
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Pub Date : 2024-04-03 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12054
Idriss I. Kallon, Taryn Young, Tonya A. MacDonald, Anel Schoonees, Joy Oliver, Dachi I. Arikpo, Solange Durão, Emmanuel Effa, Ameer S.-J. Hohlfeld, Tamara Kredo, Charles S. Wiysonge, Lawrence Mbuagbaw

Background

Well-conducted systematic reviews contribute to informing clinical practice and public health guidelines. Between 2008 and 2018 Cochrane authors in sub-Saharan Africa were publishing progressively fewer Cochrane Reviews, compared to non-Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to determine what motivated trained Cochrane authors in sub-Saharan Africa to conduct and publish non-Cochrane reviews over Cochrane Reviews.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods exploratory sequential study. We purposely selected 12 authors, who had published at least one Cochrane- and one non-Cochrane review, for in-depth, semi-structured interviews. We manually coded and analysed the qualitative data using Grounded Theory approach and used the results to inform the survey questions. Subsequently we surveyed 60 authors with similar publishing experience. We analysed the quantitative data using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results

Facilitators to publish with Cochrane were a high-impact factor, rigorous research, and visibility. From barriers, the main categories were protracted time to complete Cochrane Reviews, complex title registration process, and inconsistencies between Cochrane Review groups regarding editorial practices. From the survey, authors confirmed rigorous research and reviewing process (84%), high impact factor (77%), and good mentorship (73%). The major barriers included Cochrane's long reviewing process (70%) and Cochrane's complicated title registration (50%). Authors with publishing experience in the previous 10 years at <95 percentile of systematic review publications, there was no significant difference between the medians for publishing with Cochrane (1) and non-Cochrane (0) reviews, p = 0.06. Similarly, for those with publishing experience of ≥95 percentile of systematic review publication there was no significant difference between the medians for publishing with Cochrane (4) and non-Cochrane (6), p = 0.344.

Conclusion

Authors considered the visibility and relevance of Cochrane research as a trade-off point. They continued publishing with Cochrane despite the barriers that they encountered. However, the concerns raised by many authors are worth addressing.

背景 开展良好的系统综述有助于为临床实践和公共卫生指南提供信息。2008 年至 2018 年间，撒哈拉以南非洲地区的科克伦作者发表的科克伦综述逐渐少于非科克伦综述。本研究旨在确定是什么因素促使撒哈拉以南非洲受过培训的科克伦作者开展并发表非科克伦综述而非科克伦综述。 方法 我们进行了一项混合方法探索性顺序研究。我们有目的地选择了 12 位至少发表过一篇 Cochrane 综述和一篇非 Cochrane 综述的作者进行了深入的半结构式访谈。我们采用基础理论方法对定性数据进行了人工编码和分析，并将结果用于调查问题。随后，我们对 60 位具有类似出版经验的作者进行了调查。我们使用描述性和推论性统计方法对定量数据进行了分析。 结果 在 Cochrane 上发表论文的促进因素包括高影响力因素、严谨的研究和知名度。从障碍来看，主要包括完成 Cochrane 综述的时间过长、标题注册过程复杂以及 Cochrane 综述组之间编辑实践不一致。在调查中，作者确认了严谨的研究和评审过程（84%）、高影响因子（77%）和良好的指导（73%）。主要障碍包括 Cochrane 的审稿流程长（70%）和 Cochrane 复杂的标题注册（50%）。在过去 10 年中有发表系统综述经验的作者中，发表过 Cochrane 综述（1 篇）和未发表过 Cochrane 综述（0 篇）的作者的中位数没有显著差异，P = 0.06。同样，对于系统综述发表经验≥95%的作者而言，发表 Cochrane 综述（4 篇）和非 Cochrane 综述（6 篇）的中位数之间没有显著差异，p = 0.344。 结论 作者认为 Cochrane 研究的知名度和相关性是一个权衡点。尽管遇到了一些障碍，他们还是继续在 Cochrane 上发表文章。然而，许多作者提出的问题值得解决。
{"title":"Publication barriers and facilitators of Cochrane authors in sub-Saharan Africa: A mixed-methods study","authors":"Idriss I. Kallon,&nbsp;Taryn Young,&nbsp;Tonya A. MacDonald,&nbsp;Anel Schoonees,&nbsp;Joy Oliver,&nbsp;Dachi I. Arikpo,&nbsp;Solange Durão,&nbsp;Emmanuel Effa,&nbsp;Ameer S.-J. Hohlfeld,&nbsp;Tamara Kredo,&nbsp;Charles S. Wiysonge,&nbsp;Lawrence Mbuagbaw","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12054","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Well-conducted systematic reviews contribute to informing clinical practice and public health guidelines. Between 2008 and 2018 Cochrane authors in sub-Saharan Africa were publishing progressively fewer Cochrane Reviews, compared to non-Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to determine what motivated trained Cochrane authors in sub-Saharan Africa to conduct and publish non-Cochrane reviews over Cochrane Reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted a mixed-methods exploratory sequential study. We purposely selected 12 authors, who had published at least one Cochrane- and one non-Cochrane review, for in-depth, semi-structured interviews. We manually coded and analysed the qualitative data using Grounded Theory approach and used the results to inform the survey questions. Subsequently we surveyed 60 authors with similar publishing experience. We analysed the quantitative data using descriptive and inferential statistics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Facilitators to publish with Cochrane were a high-impact factor, rigorous research, and visibility. From barriers, the main categories were protracted time to complete Cochrane Reviews, complex title registration process, and inconsistencies between Cochrane Review groups regarding editorial practices. From the survey, authors confirmed rigorous research and reviewing process (84%), high impact factor (77%), and good mentorship (73%). The major barriers included Cochrane's long reviewing process (70%) and Cochrane's complicated title registration (50%). Authors with publishing experience in the previous 10 years at &lt;95 percentile of systematic review publications, there was no significant difference between the medians for publishing with Cochrane (1) and non-Cochrane (0) reviews, <i>p</i> = 0.06. Similarly, for those with publishing experience of ≥95 percentile of systematic review publication there was no significant difference between the medians for publishing with Cochrane (4) and non-Cochrane (6), <i>p</i> = 0.344.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Authors considered the visibility and relevance of Cochrane research as a trade-off point. They continued publishing with Cochrane despite the barriers that they encountered. However, the concerns raised by many authors are worth addressing.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12054","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140345808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Consideration of health inequity in systematic reviews and primary studies on risk factors for hearing loss 在关于听力损失风险因素的系统回顾和初步研究中考虑健康不平等问题
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Pub Date : 2024-04-03 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12052
Simon Briscoe, Elizabeth Shaw, Michael Nunns, Hassanat Lawal, Noreen Orr, Jo Thompson Coon, Ruth Garside, G. J. Melendez-Torres

Background

Health inequities are systematic, avoidable, and unfair differences in health between populations or population subgroups. There is increased recognition of the need for systematic reviews (SRs) to address health inequities, including drawing out findings relevant to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which SRs on risk factors for hearing loss reported findings associated with health inequities, and the extent to which this data was captured in the primary studies included within these SRs.

Methods

We identified SRs on risk factors for hearing loss from a report on this topic which included a systematic search for relevant SRs. SRs thus identified were inspected for data related to health inequity with reference to PROGRESS-Plus. We compared how data were reported in SRs versus within primary studies included in the SRs, and the extent to which primary studies from LMICs were represented.

Results

We included 17 SRs which reported findings on a variety of physiological, behavioral, demographic, and environmental risk factors for hearing loss. There were 296 unique primary studies included in the SRs, of which 251 (81.49%) were successfully retrieved. Data relating to health inequities was reported relatively infrequently in the SRs and mainly focused on gender and age. Data related to health inequities was more frequently reported in primary studies. However, several PROGRESS-Plus criteria were only reported in a minority of primary studies. Approximately one-third of primary studies were from LMICs.

Conclusions

There is scope to improve the reporting of data relating to health inequities in primary studies on risk factors for hearing loss. However, SR authors could do more to report health inequities than is currently undertaken, including drawing out findings relevant to LMICs where data are available.

背景 健康不公平是指人口或人口亚群之间存在的系统性、可避免和不公平的健康差异。越来越多的人认识到需要通过系统综述（SR）来解决健康不公平问题，包括得出与中低收入国家（LMIC）相关的研究结果。本研究旨在确定有关听力损失风险因素的系统综述在多大程度上报告了与健康不平等相关的研究结果，以及这些系统综述所包含的主要研究在多大程度上获取了这些数据。 方法 我们从一份有关听力损失风险因素的报告中确定了SR，该报告包括对相关SR的系统搜索。我们参照 PROGRESS-Plus，检查了由此确定的 SR 中与健康不公平相关的数据。我们比较了 SR 中报告数据的方式与 SR 中包含的主要研究中报告数据的方式，以及来自低收入国家的主要研究的代表性。 结果 我们收录了 17 项 SR，这些 SR 报告了有关听力损失的各种生理、行为、人口和环境风险因素的研究结果。共有 296 项独特的主要研究被纳入了 SR，其中 251 项（81.49%）被成功检索到。与健康不平等相关的数据在 SR 中的报道相对较少，主要集中在性别和年龄方面。与健康不平等相关的数据在初级研究中报告得更多。然而，只有少数初级研究报告了几项 PROGRESS-Plus 标准。约有三分之一的初级研究来自低收入和中等收入国家。 结论 在有关听力损失风险因素的初级研究中，与健康不平等相关的数据报告还有改进的余地。不过，SR 的作者在报告健康不平等方面可以比目前做得更多，包括在有数据的情况下引出与低收入、中等收入国家相关的研究结果。
{"title":"Consideration of health inequity in systematic reviews and primary studies on risk factors for hearing loss","authors":"Simon Briscoe,&nbsp;Elizabeth Shaw,&nbsp;Michael Nunns,&nbsp;Hassanat Lawal,&nbsp;Noreen Orr,&nbsp;Jo Thompson Coon,&nbsp;Ruth Garside,&nbsp;G. J. Melendez-Torres","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12052","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Health inequities are systematic, avoidable, and unfair differences in health between populations or population subgroups. There is increased recognition of the need for systematic reviews (SRs) to address health inequities, including drawing out findings relevant to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which SRs on risk factors for hearing loss reported findings associated with health inequities, and the extent to which this data was captured in the primary studies included within these SRs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified SRs on risk factors for hearing loss from a report on this topic which included a systematic search for relevant SRs. SRs thus identified were inspected for data related to health inequity with reference to PROGRESS-Plus. We compared how data were reported in SRs versus within primary studies included in the SRs, and the extent to which primary studies from LMICs were represented.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included 17 SRs which reported findings on a variety of physiological, behavioral, demographic, and environmental risk factors for hearing loss. There were 296 unique primary studies included in the SRs, of which 251 (81.49%) were successfully retrieved. Data relating to health inequities was reported relatively infrequently in the SRs and mainly focused on gender and age. Data related to health inequities was more frequently reported in primary studies. However, several PROGRESS-Plus criteria were only reported in a minority of primary studies. Approximately one-third of primary studies were from LMICs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>There is scope to improve the reporting of data relating to health inequities in primary studies on risk factors for hearing loss. However, SR authors could do more to report health inequities than is currently undertaken, including drawing out findings relevant to LMICs where data are available.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140345785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams 期刊作者须知中的系统性综述指南：调查结果和对编辑团队的建议
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Pub Date : 2024-03-31 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12050
Nele S. Pauwels, Muguet Koobasi, Andra Fry, Thomas Vandendriessche, Annie Wittevrongel, Marte Ødegaard

Introduction

Systematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical decision-making, policy formulation, and evidence-based practice. However, despite the existence of well-established guidelines, inadequately executed and reported systematic reviews continue to be published. These highly cited reviews not only pose a threat to the credibility of science but also have substantial implications for medical decision-making. This study aims to evaluate and recommend improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews.

Methods

A sample of 168 journals was selected based on systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2021, taking into account their Altmetric attention score, citation impact, and mentions in Altmetric Explorer. Author instructions were downloaded, and data extraction was carried out using a standardized web form. Two reviewers independently extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics, and recommendations for editorial teams were formulated. The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf. io/bym8d).

Results

One-third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines, protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist. Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldom acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews.

Conclusion

Journals that make substantial contributions to synthesizing evidence in biomedicine and health are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting of reliable systematic reviews. This not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially compromises the quality of this frequently published research type. Furthermore, there is a need for greater recognition of the added value of information specialists to the systematic review and publishing processes. This article provides recommendations dra

导言 系统综述在为临床决策、政策制定和循证实践提供信息方面发挥着至关重要的作用。然而，尽管有完善的指导原则，但执行和报告不充分的系统综述仍在继续发表。这些被高度引用的综述不仅对科学的可信度构成威胁，而且对医疗决策也有重大影响。本研究旨在评估生物医学和健康类期刊关于开展和报告系统综述的作者说明，并提出改进建议。 方法 根据2020年至2021年间发表的系统综述，并考虑其Altmetric关注度得分、引文影响力以及在Altmetric Explorer中的提及次数，选取了168种期刊作为样本。我们下载了作者说明，并使用标准化的网络表格进行数据提取。两名审稿人独立提取数据，不一致之处由第三名审稿人解决。研究结果通过描述性统计进行展示，并为编辑团队提出建议。该协议已在开放科学框架注册中心（osf. io/bym8d）注册。 结果 三分之一的期刊缺乏针对系统综述的指导，具体表现为没有提及开展或报告指南、协议注册、数据共享以及信息专家的参与。半数的作者指南中没有专门针对系统综述的章节，妨碍了有针对性信息的查找。信息专家的参与很少得到认可。最后，大多数作者指南都没有注明更新日期，这让人担心系统性综述是否纳入了最新的发展和工具。 结论 对生物医学和健康领域的证据综合做出重大贡献的期刊错失了一次机会，未能在其作者须知中就开展和报告可靠的系统综述提供明确的指导。这不仅不能为未来的作者提供信息，还有可能影响这种经常发表的研究类型的质量。此外，有必要进一步认识到信息专家对系统综述和出版流程的附加价值。本文根据研究的观察结果提出了一些建议，旨在帮助编辑团队加强对作者的指导，从而帮助系统综述作者提高综述的质量。
{"title":"Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams","authors":"Nele S. Pauwels,&nbsp;Muguet Koobasi,&nbsp;Andra Fry,&nbsp;Thomas Vandendriessche,&nbsp;Annie Wittevrongel,&nbsp;Marte Ødegaard","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12050","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Systematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical decision-making, policy formulation, and evidence-based practice. However, despite the existence of well-established guidelines, inadequately executed and reported systematic reviews continue to be published. These highly cited reviews not only pose a threat to the credibility of science but also have substantial implications for medical decision-making. This study aims to evaluate and recommend improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A sample of 168 journals was selected based on systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2021, taking into account their Altmetric attention score, citation impact, and mentions in Altmetric Explorer. Author instructions were downloaded, and data extraction was carried out using a standardized web form. Two reviewers independently extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics, and recommendations for editorial teams were formulated. The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf. io/bym8d).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>One-third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines, protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist. Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldom acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Journals that make substantial contributions to synthesizing evidence in biomedicine and health are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting of reliable systematic reviews. This not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially compromises the quality of this frequently published research type. Furthermore, there is a need for greater recognition of the added value of information specialists to the systematic review and publishing processes. This article provides recommendations dra","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12050","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140333355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Correction to: “Standardized mean differences in meta-analysis: A tutorial” 更正："荟萃分析中的标准化均值差异：教程"
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Pub Date : 2024-03-25 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12049

Gallardo-Gómez D, Richardson R, Dwan K. Standardized mean differences in meta-analysis: A tutorial. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods 2024; 2(3): e12047

The URL link to the micro-learning module produced by Cochrane Training to accompany this article was incorrect. This appears in Section 6: Further reading and online content. The link should read https://links.cochrane.org/cesm/tutorials/smd. This has now been corrected.

We apologize for this error.

Gallardo-Gómez D、Richardson R、Dwan K.荟萃分析中的标准化平均差：教程。Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods 2024; 2(3): e12047本文附带的由 Cochrane Training 制作的微型学习模块的 URL 链接有误。该链接出现在第6节：进一步阅读和在线内容中。链接应为 https://links.cochrane.org/cesm/tutorials/smd。我们对此错误深表歉意。
{"title":"Correction to: “Standardized mean differences in meta-analysis: A tutorial”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12049","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Gallardo-Gómez D, Richardson R, Dwan K. Standardized mean differences in meta-analysis: A tutorial. <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i> 2024; 2(3): e12047</p><p>The URL link to the micro-learning module produced by Cochrane Training to accompany this article was incorrect. This appears in Section 6: Further reading and online content. The link should read https://links.cochrane.org/cesm/tutorials/smd. This has now been corrected.</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12049","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140291412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
首页 上一页 下一页 尾页
类型
全部 化学•材料 生命科学 医学 物理 工程技术 环境•农林 材料科学 地球科学 法学 管理学 化学 环境科学与生态学 计算机科学 教育学 经济学 农林科学 人文科学 生物学 数学 物理与天体物理 心理学 综合性期刊 其他 工业工程 理学 历史学 农学 文学 信息工程
数据库
全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley
期刊
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
﹀
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整，为了账户安全，请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号：481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们：info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务，方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1