Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献_第7页

Systematic reviewers' perspectives on replication of systematic reviews: A survey 系统评价者对系统评价复制的看法：一项调查

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2023-04-10 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12009

Phi-Yen Nguyen, Joanne E. McKenzie, Daniel G. Hamilton, David Moher, Peter Tugwell, Fiona M. Fidler, Neal R. Haddaway, Julian P. T. Higgins, Raju Kanukula, Sathya Karunananthan, Lara J. Maxwell, Steve McDonald, Shinichi Nakagawa, David Nunan, Vivian A. Welch, Matthew J. Page

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 (n = 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% (n = 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 (n = 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.

背景复制对科学方法至关重要。目前尚不清楚系统评审员对系统评审的复制有何看法。因此，我们旨在探讨系统评审者对（a）SR复制的定义和重要性的看法；（b）开展SR复制的激励措施和障碍；和（c）指导何时复制SR的检查表。方法我们在PubMed中搜索2021年1月至4月发布的SR，从中我们随机分配50%用于本次调查，50%用于另一项关于SR数据共享的调查。我们向这些SR（n = 4669）。使用频率分析对定量反应进行总结。自由文本答案采用归纳法进行编码。结果有效率为9%（n = 409）。大多数参与者认为“SR的复制”是使用相同或类似的方法重做SR（68%）或重新分析原始收集的数据（61%）。参与者还考虑更新SR，无论是自己的（42%）还是其他人的（43%），相当于复制。大多数参与者都认为复制SR很重要（89%）。尽管54%的参与者报告进行了SR的复制，但只有22%的参与者在5年内发表了复制。发布复制（n = 89）经常发现他们的复制得到支持（47%）或扩大了原始综述的可推广性（51%）。与进行原始SR相比，复制SR最常见的障碍是出版困难（75%）、声望较低（65%）、引用次数较少（56%）以及对职业发展的影响较小（55%）。评估复制需求的检查表被参与者认为是有用的（79%），并且易于在实践中应用（69%）。结论评论者对什么是SRs的复制有不同的看法。评审员认为复制是重要和有价值的，但认为进行复制存在一些障碍。应更好地向审查人员传达机构支持，以解决这些看法。

{"title":"Systematic reviewers' perspectives on replication of systematic reviews: A survey","authors":"Phi-Yen Nguyen, Joanne E. McKenzie, Daniel G. Hamilton, David Moher, Peter Tugwell, Fiona M. Fidler, Neal R. Haddaway, Julian P. T. Higgins, Raju Kanukula, Sathya Karunananthan, Lara J. Maxwell, Steve McDonald, Shinichi Nakagawa, David Nunan, Vivian A. Welch, Matthew J. Page","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12009","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>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.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>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 (<i>n</i> = 4669) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free-text answers were coded using an inductive approach.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The response rate was 9% (<i>n</i> = 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 (<i>n</i> = 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.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>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.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50127111","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: 2

Systematic reviewers' perspectives on sharing review data, analytic code, and other materials: A survey 系统评审员对共享评审数据、分析代码和其他材料的看法：一项调查

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2023-04-10 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12008

Phi-Yen Nguyen, Joanne E. McKenzie, Daniel G. Hamilton, David Moher, Peter Tugwell, Fiona M. Fidler, Neal R. Haddaway, Julian P. T. Higgins, Raju Kanukula, Sathya Karunananthan, Lara J. Maxwell, Steve McDonald, Shinichi Nakagawa, David Nunan, Vivian A. Welch, Matthew J. Page

Background

There are many benefits of sharing data, analytic code, and other materials, yet these items are infrequently shared among systematic reviews (SRs). It is unclear which factors influence authors' decisions to share data, code, or materials when publishing their SRs. Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on the importance of sharing review materials and factors that might influence such practices.

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 the replication of SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs (n = 4671) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free-text answers were coded using an inductive approach.

Results

The response rate was 9% (n = 417). Most participants supported routine sharing of search strategies (84%) but fewer for analytic code (43%) or files documenting data preparation (38%). Most participants agreed that normative practices within the discipline were an important facilitator (78%). Major perceived barriers were lack of time (62%) and suitable sharing platforms (31%). Few participants were required by funders (19%) or institutions (17%) to share data, and only 12% of participants reported receiving training on data sharing. Commonly perceived consequences of data sharing were lost opportunities for future publications (50%), misuse of data (48%), and issues with intellectual property (40%). In their most recent reviews, participants who did not share data cited the lack of journal requirements (56%) or noted the review did not include any statistical analysis that required sharing (29%).

Conclusion

Certain types of review materials were considered unnecessary for sharing, despite their importance to the review's transparency and reproducibility. Structural barriers and concerns about negative consequences hinder data sharing among systematic reviewers. Normalization and institutional incentives are essential to promote data-sharing practices in evidence-synthesis research.

背景共享数据、分析代码和其他材料有很多好处，但这些项目很少在系统评审（SR）中共享。目前尚不清楚哪些因素会影响作者在发布SR时共享数据、代码或材料的决定。因此，我们旨在探讨系统评审员对共享评审材料的重要性以及可能影响此类实践的因素的看法。方法我们在PubMed中搜索2021年1月至4月发表的SRs，从中我们随机分配50%用于本次调查，50%用于另一项关于SRs复制的调查。我们向这些SR（n = 4671）使用Qualtrics。使用频率分析对定量反应进行总结。自由文本答案采用归纳法进行编码。结果有效率为9%（n = 417）。大多数参与者支持常规共享搜索策略（84%），但支持分析代码（43%）或记录数据准备的文件（38%）的参与者较少。大多数参与者一致认为，学科内的规范性实践是一个重要的促进因素（78%）。主要的感知障碍是缺乏时间（62%）和合适的共享平台（31%）。很少有参与者被资助者（19%）或机构（17%）要求共享数据，只有12%的参与者报告接受了数据共享培训。数据共享的常见后果是失去了未来出版的机会（50%）、数据滥用（48%）和知识产权问题（40%）。在最近的综述中，没有分享数据的参与者表示缺乏期刊要求（56%），或者指出综述中没有任何需要分享的统计分析（29%）。结论尽管某些类型的审查材料对审查的透明度和再现性很重要，但它们被认为没有必要共享。结构性障碍和对负面后果的担忧阻碍了系统审查人员之间的数据共享。规范化和体制激励对于促进证据综合研究中的数据共享做法至关重要。

{"title":"Systematic reviewers' perspectives on sharing review data, analytic code, and other materials: A survey","authors":"Phi-Yen Nguyen, Joanne E. McKenzie, Daniel G. Hamilton, David Moher, Peter Tugwell, Fiona M. Fidler, Neal R. Haddaway, Julian P. T. Higgins, Raju Kanukula, Sathya Karunananthan, Lara J. Maxwell, Steve McDonald, Shinichi Nakagawa, David Nunan, Vivian A. Welch, Matthew J. Page","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12008","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>There are many benefits of sharing data, analytic code, and other materials, yet these items are infrequently shared among systematic reviews (SRs). It is unclear which factors influence authors' decisions to share data, code, or materials when publishing their SRs. Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on the importance of sharing review materials and factors that might influence such practices.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>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 the replication of SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs (<i>n</i> = 4671) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free-text answers were coded using an inductive approach.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The response rate was 9% (<i>n</i> = 417). Most participants supported routine sharing of search strategies (84%) but fewer for analytic code (43%) or files documenting data preparation (38%). Most participants agreed that normative practices within the discipline were an important facilitator (78%). Major perceived barriers were lack of time (62%) and suitable sharing platforms (31%). Few participants were required by funders (19%) or institutions (17%) to share data, and only 12% of participants reported receiving training on data sharing. Commonly perceived consequences of data sharing were lost opportunities for future publications (50%), misuse of data (48%), and issues with intellectual property (40%). In their most recent reviews, participants who did not share data cited the lack of journal requirements (56%) or noted the review did not include any statistical analysis that required sharing (29%).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Certain types of review materials were considered unnecessary for sharing, despite their importance to the review's transparency and reproducibility. Structural barriers and concerns about negative consequences hinder data sharing among systematic reviewers. Normalization and institutional incentives are essential to promote data-sharing practices in evidence-synthesis research.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50127110","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: 1

Quick prioritization of Cochrane reviews on benign conditions of the prostate 前列腺良性疾病Cochrane综述的快速优先级

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2023-03-27 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12002

Juan V. A. Franco, Jae H. Jung, Philipp Dahm

Introduction

Benign conditions of the prostate include benign prostatic enlargement and prostatitis, which constitute an important cause of morbidity in men.

Objective

We aimed to generate a list of priority topics of interest to our external stakeholders within our editorial scope.

Methods

Following Cochrane's guidance, we developed a tiered approach for consulting internal and external stakeholders, including members from Urological societies. First, we analyzed our portfolio, including different impact measurements, to assess the need for updates. Then, following criteria related to the feasibility, novelty and relevance of prospective topics for evidence synthesis, we narrowed the list to a suite of titles for updates or new reviews.

Results

Twelve editors provided initial feedback as to what the priorities were for updating existing reviews and for new reviews in our portfolio. The editors identified gaps in our portfolio, mainly covering new treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Then we consulted external stakeholders obtaining 30 responses from 14 countries. These stakeholders provided additional information about the relative importance of existing topics and suggested new ones. We identified that many of the latter were already covered in our portfolio, highlighting gaps in their dissemination. Finally, we narrowed down four priority topics that the editorial group will take forward and two additional topics that might need other considerations before being commissioned.

Conclusions

Following Cochrane's guidance on priority setting, we identified topics relevant to our editors and external stakeholders by analysing our portfolio and two rounds of surveys. Moreover, we identified opportunities for disseminating existing reviews. Further evaluation is needed of the following up commissioning process for priority reviews.

前列腺良性疾病包括前列腺增生和前列腺炎，这是男性发病的重要原因。目标我们的目标是在编辑范围内生成一份外部利益相关者感兴趣的优先主题列表。方法遵循Cochrane的指导，我们制定了一种分级方法来咨询内部和外部利益相关者，包括泌尿学会的成员。首先，我们分析了我们的投资组合，包括不同的影响衡量标准，以评估更新的必要性。然后，根据与证据合成的前瞻性主题的可行性、新颖性和相关性相关的标准，我们将列表缩小为一系列标题，以供更新或新评论。结果12位编辑就更新现有评论和我们作品集中新评论的优先事项提供了初步反馈。编辑们发现了我们作品集中的空白，主要涉及良性前列腺增生的新治疗方法。然后，我们咨询了外部利益攸关方，从14个国家获得了30份回复。这些利益攸关方提供了关于现有议题相对重要性的补充信息，并提出了新议题。我们发现，后者中的许多已经包含在我们的投资组合中，这突出了它们在传播方面的差距。最后，我们缩小了编辑小组将推进的四个优先主题，以及在委托之前可能需要其他考虑的两个额外主题。结论根据Cochrane关于优先级设置的指导，我们通过分析我们的投资组合和两轮调查，确定了与我们的编辑和外部利益相关者相关的主题。此外，我们确定了传播现有审查的机会。需要对后续调试过程进行进一步评估，以便进行优先审查。

{"title":"Quick prioritization of Cochrane reviews on benign conditions of the prostate","authors":"Juan V. A. Franco, Jae H. Jung, Philipp Dahm","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12002","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Benign conditions of the prostate include benign prostatic enlargement and prostatitis, which constitute an important cause of morbidity in men.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We aimed to generate a list of priority topics of interest to our external stakeholders within our editorial scope.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Following Cochrane's guidance, we developed a tiered approach for consulting internal and external stakeholders, including members from Urological societies. First, we analyzed our portfolio, including different impact measurements, to assess the need for updates. Then, following criteria related to the feasibility, novelty and relevance of prospective topics for evidence synthesis, we narrowed the list to a suite of titles for updates or new reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Twelve editors provided initial feedback as to what the priorities were for updating existing reviews and for new reviews in our portfolio. The editors identified gaps in our portfolio, mainly covering new treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Then we consulted external stakeholders obtaining 30 responses from 14 countries. These stakeholders provided additional information about the relative importance of existing topics and suggested new ones. We identified that many of the latter were already covered in our portfolio, highlighting gaps in their dissemination. Finally, we narrowed down four priority topics that the editorial group will take forward and two additional topics that might need other considerations before being commissioned.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Following Cochrane's guidance on priority setting, we identified topics relevant to our editors and external stakeholders by analysing our portfolio and two rounds of surveys. Moreover, we identified opportunities for disseminating existing reviews. Further evaluation is needed of the following up commissioning process for priority reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50122871","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

Criteria adherence and citation impact of urologic Cochrane review co-publications 泌尿科Cochrane综述联合出版物的标准依从性和引用影响

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2023-03-27 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12004

Ranveer Vasdev, Zahrah Shakur, Philipp Dahm

Introduction

Cochrane systematic reviews are widely recognized as authoritative sources of evidence. To improve dissemination and impact, editorial groups often encourage co-publication of their reviews in other journals. Our study aimed to analyze urology-relevant co-publications and determine their adherence to Cochrane's four co-publication criteria and impact using citation analysis

Methods

We systematically identified all Cochrane reviews published by the Urology, Incontinence, Renal, and Transplantation Groups from 1998 to 2021 as well as subsequent co-publications using MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. We also determined adherence to Cochrane's four co-publication criteria and analyzed citation rates.

Results

Of the 202 Cochrane reviews included, 52 (25.7%) had an associated co-publication. The majority of the co-publications corresponded to the Urology Group (39; 76.9%), followed by the Incontinence (9; 17.3%) and Kidney and Transplant Group (3; 5.8%). Only 21 (40.0%) co-publications met all four co-publication criteria, with the most common criteria not satisfied was inclusion of the word “Cochrane” in the co-publication title (50% adherence). The proportion adhering to a subset of criteria significantly increased for reviews published between 2013 and 2021 compared to those from 1998 to 2012. Compared to corresponding Cochrane reviews, there was no significant difference in the number of citations of co-publications across all sampled databases, although co-publication citations were usually less than those of original reviews.

Conclusion

Approximately one in four urology-related Cochrane reviews are co-published. Though co-publications garnered a considerable number of citations that could help in the dissemination of Cochrane reviews, many are not readily identifiable as such.

引言Cochrane系统综述是公认的权威证据来源。为了提高传播和影响力，编辑小组经常鼓励在其他期刊上共同发表他们的评论。我们的研究旨在分析泌尿外科相关的联合出版物，并使用引文分析来确定它们是否符合Cochrane的四个联合出版物标准和影响，1998年至2021年的移植小组，以及随后使用MEDLINE、Web of Science、Scopus和Google Scholar数据库的联合出版物。我们还确定了对Cochrane的四个共同发表标准的遵守情况，并分析了引用率。结果在纳入的202篇Cochrane综述中，52篇（25.7%）有相关的联合出版物。大多数联合出版物对应于泌尿外科组（39篇；76.9%），其次是失禁组（9篇；17.3%）和肾脏与移植组（3篇；5.8%）。只有21篇（40.0%）联合出版物符合所有四个联合出版物标准，最常见的不符合标准是在联合出版物标题中包含“Cochrane”一词（50%的依从性）。与1998年至2012年相比，2013年至2021年间发表的评论中遵守某一标准子集的比例显著增加。与相应的Cochrane综述相比，在所有抽样数据库中，共同出版物的引用次数没有显著差异，尽管共同出版物的引文通常少于原始综述。结论大约四分之一的泌尿外科相关Cochrane综述是联合发表的。尽管联合出版物获得了大量引用，这可能有助于传播Cochrane评论，但许多出版物并不容易被识别。

{"title":"Criteria adherence and citation impact of urologic Cochrane review co-publications","authors":"Ranveer Vasdev, Zahrah Shakur, Philipp Dahm","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12004","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Cochrane systematic reviews are widely recognized as authoritative sources of evidence. To improve dissemination and impact, editorial groups often encourage co-publication of their reviews in other journals. Our study aimed to analyze urology-relevant co-publications and determine their adherence to Cochrane's four co-publication criteria and impact using citation analysis</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We systematically identified all Cochrane reviews published by the Urology, Incontinence, Renal, and Transplantation Groups from 1998 to 2021 as well as subsequent co-publications using MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. We also determined adherence to Cochrane's four co-publication criteria and analyzed citation rates.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of the 202 Cochrane reviews included, 52 (25.7%) had an associated co-publication. The majority of the co-publications corresponded to the Urology Group (39; 76.9%), followed by the Incontinence (9; 17.3%) and Kidney and Transplant Group (3; 5.8%). Only 21 (40.0%) co-publications met all four co-publication criteria, with the most common criteria not satisfied was inclusion of the word “Cochrane” in the co-publication title (50% adherence). The proportion adhering to a subset of criteria significantly increased for reviews published between 2013 and 2021 compared to those from 1998 to 2012. Compared to corresponding Cochrane reviews, there was no significant difference in the number of citations of co-publications across all sampled databases, although co-publication citations were usually less than those of original reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Approximately one in four urology-related Cochrane reviews are co-published. Though co-publications garnered a considerable number of citations that could help in the dissemination of Cochrane reviews, many are not readily identifiable as such.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50122872","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

Effect of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of people with post-COVID-19 condition: A rapid review 药物干预对COVID-19后疾病患者的治疗效果：快速回顾

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2023-03-20 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12001

K. M. Saif-Ur-Rahman, Kavita Kothari, Corinna Sadlier, Frank Moriarty, Ani Movsisyan, Sean Whelan, Petek E. Taneri, Matthew Blair, Gordon Guyatt, Declan Devane

Objective

Little is known about the treatment of post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (PCC). This article examines the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for treating people with PCC.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials. gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two independent review authors screened citations, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. Due to heterogeneity in participants, interventions, and outcomes, we synthesized data narratively. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).

Participants

People with PCC.

Interventions

Pharmacological interventions include corticosteroids, ivabradine, and inhaled hydrogen.

Outcome Measures

Olfactory function, sinus tachycardia, respiratory function.

Results

We identified 5 completed studies and 41 ongoing studies. Oral corticosteroids and olfactory training had higher olfactory scores after 10 weeks (MD: 5.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41 to 9.79). Patients allocated oral corticosteroid, and nasal irrigation demonstrated improved recovery of olfactory function compared with the control group at 40 days (median 60, interquartile range [IQR]: 40 vs. median 30, IQR: 25, p = 0.024). Patients allocated to topical corticosteroid nasal spray and olfactory training had improved recovery of olfactory function after 2 weeks (median 7, IQR: 5−10 vs. median 5, IQR: 2−8, p = 0.08). Participants allocated to ivabradine had a greater mean reduction in heart rate compared with participants randomized to carvedilol (MD: −4.24, 95% CI: −10.09 to 1.61). Participants allocated to inhaled hydrogen therapy had an improved vital capacity (MD: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.33), forced expiratory volume (MD: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.34), 6-minute walk test (MD: 55.0, 95% CI: 36.04 to 73.96).

Conclusions

The evidence is of low to very low certainty about the effect of all pharmacological intervent

目的对2019年新冠肺炎后冠状病毒病（PCC）的治疗方法知之甚少。本文探讨了药物干预治疗PCC患者的有效性。方法检索Medline、EMBASE、ClinicalTrials。gov和国际临床试验注册平台。两位独立综述作者筛选引文，提取数据，并评估纳入研究的质量。由于参与者、干预措施和结果的异质性，我们对数据进行了叙述性综合。我们使用GRADE（建议、评估、发展和评估的分级）来评估证据的确定性。参与者PCC患者。干预措施药理学干预措施包括皮质类固醇、伊伐布雷定和吸入氢气。结果测量嗅觉功能、窦性心动过速、呼吸功能。结果我们确定了5项已完成的研究和41项正在进行的研究。口服皮质类固醇和嗅觉训练在10周后嗅觉得分更高（MD:5.60，95%置信区间[CI]:1.41-9.79）。与对照组相比，患者在40天时分配口服皮质类固醇，鼻腔冲洗显示嗅觉功能恢复改善（中位数60，四分位间距[IQR]:40 vs.中位数30，IQR:25，p = 0.024）。接受局部皮质类固醇鼻喷雾剂和嗅觉训练的患者在2周后嗅觉功能的恢复有所改善（中位数7，IQR:5−10 vs.中位数5，IQR:2−8，p = 0.08）。与随机分配给卡维地洛的参与者相比，分配给伊伐布雷定的参与者平均心率下降幅度更大（MD:-4.24，95%CI:-10.09至1.61）。分配给吸入氢疗法的参与者肺活量（MD:0.20，95%CI:0.07至0.33）、用力呼气量（MD:0.19，95%CI:0.04至0.34）、，6分钟步行试验（MD:55.0，95%CI:36.04-73.96）。目前有一项重要的研究正在进行中，可以扩大证据，为PCC药物干预的治疗决策提供信息。

{"title":"Effect of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of people with post-COVID-19 condition: A rapid review","authors":"K. M. Saif-Ur-Rahman, Kavita Kothari, Corinna Sadlier, Frank Moriarty, Ani Movsisyan, Sean Whelan, Petek E. Taneri, Matthew Blair, Gordon Guyatt, Declan Devane","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12001","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Little is known about the treatment of post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (PCC). This article examines the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for treating people with PCC.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched Medline, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials. gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two independent review authors screened citations, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. Due to heterogeneity in participants, interventions, and outcomes, we synthesized data narratively. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Participants</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>People with PCC.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Interventions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Pharmacological interventions include corticosteroids, ivabradine, and inhaled hydrogen.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Outcome Measures</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Olfactory function, sinus tachycardia, respiratory function.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 5 completed studies and 41 ongoing studies. Oral corticosteroids and olfactory training had higher olfactory scores after 10 weeks (MD: 5.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41 to 9.79). Patients allocated oral corticosteroid, and nasal irrigation demonstrated improved recovery of olfactory function compared with the control group at 40 days (median 60, interquartile range [IQR]: 40 vs. median 30, IQR: 25, <i>p</i> = 0.024). Patients allocated to topical corticosteroid nasal spray and olfactory training had improved recovery of olfactory function after 2 weeks (median 7, IQR: 5−10 vs. median 5, IQR: 2−8, <i>p</i> = 0.08). Participants allocated to ivabradine had a greater mean reduction in heart rate compared with participants randomized to carvedilol (MD: −4.24, 95% CI: −10.09 to 1.61). Participants allocated to inhaled hydrogen therapy had an improved vital capacity (MD: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.33), forced expiratory volume (MD: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.34), 6-minute walk test (MD: 55.0, 95% CI: 36.04 to 73.96).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The evidence is of low to very low certainty about the effect of all pharmacological intervent","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50139154","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: 2

New directions beyond the boundaries of evidence synthesis 超越证据综合界限的新方向

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2023-03-20 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12005

Michael Brown, Ella Flemyng

Welcome to Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods. A new, open-access journal to facilitate Cochrane's mission of improved health and care decision-making globally.

Cochrane is an independent and global nonprofit organization committed to producing trusted evidence, advocating for its use, and ensuring it informs health and care decisions. We encourage submissions to Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods from Cochrane's community and seek contributions from the evidence synthesis community at large.

We are committed to diversity and inclusivity, and to achieve this we have established an Editorial Board that is geographically dispersed, gender-balanced and includes people with lived experience, and with a depth of methodological expertise. As the journal develops, we will continue to monitor the representation on our Editorial Board to ensure it reflects the needs of our wider evidence synthesis community.

As Cochrane looks beyond its 30th year [1], Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods is a platform that welcomes innovative ideas. This includes how we showcase our commitment to research integrity, including with Open Research Badges [2], embedding consumer involvement within the journal, and improving peer review with a range of different initiatives. We encourage articles that report studies within reviews [3], different types of evidence syntheses that respond to relevant stakeholder questions, for example, gap maps and scoping reviews, and sharing of best practice and case studies to improve efficiencies in evidence synthesis production and ensure our standards are informed by evidence. The editors also encourage accessible language to be used in all submissions, to benefit researchers from across disciplines, nonnative English speakers, and consumers of health.

We are committed to high research integrity and authors will be able to showcase how they adhere to these practices through research integrity indicators. This includes having a clearly stated question with evidence of stakeholder need or research that informed the question to address issues of unnecessary or duplicative research. For the evidence synthesis we receive, we encourage authors to use patient-important outcomes and/or standardized outcomes, such as those defined by COMET [4]. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods will also follow Cochrane's conflict of interest policy, expect data sharing, when feasible, and adherence to reporting guidelines, as well as encourage statements about consumer involvement in the research. All of this aims to ensure the research we publish is impactful and combats areas of research waste.

Our first published paper is the rapid review on the effect of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of people with post-COVID-19 [5], which is an exemplar of the types of rapid reviews we will feature. The authors worke

欢迎来到Cochrane证据综合与方法。一本新的开放获取期刊，旨在促进Cochrane改善全球健康和护理决策的使命。Cochrane是一个独立的全球性非营利组织，致力于提供可信的证据，倡导使用证据，并确保其为健康和护理决策提供信息。我们鼓励Cochrane社区向Cochrane证据合成和方法提交材料，并寻求整个证据合成社区的贡献。我们致力于多样性和包容性，为了实现这一目标，我们成立了一个地理分散、性别平衡的编委会，其中包括有生活经验和丰富方法专业知识的人。随着期刊的发展，我们将继续监测编辑委员会的代表性，以确保其反映我们更广泛的证据综合社区的需求。随着Cochrane展望其30周年[1]，Cochrane证据综合与方法是一个欢迎创新想法的平台。这包括我们如何展示我们对研究诚信的承诺，包括使用开放研究徽章[2]，在期刊中嵌入消费者参与，以及通过一系列不同的举措改进同行评审。我们鼓励在综述[3]中报告研究的文章，回应相关利益相关者问题的不同类型的证据综合，例如差距图和范围界定综述，以及分享最佳实践和案例研究，以提高证据综合制作的效率，并确保我们的标准以证据为依据。编辑们还鼓励在所有投稿中使用通俗易懂的语言，以使来自不同学科的研究人员、非英语母语者和健康消费者受益。我们致力于高度的研究诚信，作者将能够通过研究诚信指标来展示他们是如何坚持这些做法的。这包括提出一个明确的问题，并提供利益相关者需要或研究的证据，以解决不必要或重复研究的问题。对于我们收到的证据综合，我们鼓励作者使用患者重要结果和/或标准化结果，如COMET[4]定义的结果。Cochrane证据综合与方法还将遵循Cochrane的利益冲突政策，期望在可行的情况下共享数据，遵守报告指南，并鼓励关于消费者参与研究的声明。所有这些都旨在确保我们发表的研究具有影响力，并打击研究浪费领域。我们发表的第一篇论文是关于药物干预对COVID-19后患者治疗效果的快速综述[5]，这是我们将介绍的快速综述类型的一个例子。作者与世界卫生组织（世界卫生组织）密切合作，以确保快速审查具有相关性、及时性，并仅限于直接适用于医疗保健决策的治疗问题。由于及时性，本次快速审查不包括作者团队中的消费者，然而，我们的消费者编辑审查了手稿中包含的简明语言摘要。Cochrane证据合成和方法管道中的其他文章涉及健康公平、与证据合成相关的研究完整性问题、复制在证据合成中的作用以及数据共享。我们知道，对于许多作者来说，及时和公平的编辑决定是首要任务，当我们在社区中站稳脚跟时，灵活和适应将是期刊的关键特征。作者还将通过CRediT平台[6]对发表在期刊上的研究做出具体贡献，并获得适当的认可。我们热衷于支持职业早期和中期研究人员的方法培训。为此，我们与Cochrane方法支持部门合作，制作了一系列关于常见统计和方法错误的教程文章。我们的目标是使这些教程简短、相关且易于访问，并正在探索发布短视频和信息图的可能性，以便于使用和消化信息。Cochrane证据综合与方法将不断突破界限，改进我们发布和共享证据综合及其相关研究的方式。我们期待着与您分享这些进步，因为我们将带着这些首批出版物踏上我们的旅程。Michael Brown是《Cochrane证据综合与方法》杂志的编辑。Ella Flemyn受雇于Cochrane，是《Cochrane证据综合与方法》编辑委员会成员。

{"title":"New directions beyond the boundaries of evidence synthesis","authors":"Michael Brown, Ella Flemyng","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12005","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Welcome to <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i>. A new, open-access journal to facilitate Cochrane's mission of improved health and care decision-making globally.</p><p>Cochrane is an independent and global nonprofit organization committed to producing trusted evidence, advocating for its use, and ensuring it informs health and care decisions. We encourage submissions to <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i> from Cochrane's community and seek contributions from the evidence synthesis community at large.</p><p>We are committed to diversity and inclusivity, and to achieve this we have established an Editorial Board that is geographically dispersed, gender-balanced and includes people with lived experience, and with a depth of methodological expertise. As the journal develops, we will continue to monitor the representation on our Editorial Board to ensure it reflects the needs of our wider evidence synthesis community.</p><p>As Cochrane looks beyond its 30th year [<span>1</span>], <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i> is a platform that welcomes innovative ideas. This includes how we showcase our commitment to research integrity, including with Open Research Badges [<span>2</span>], embedding consumer involvement within the journal, and improving peer review with a range of different initiatives. We encourage articles that report studies within reviews [<span>3</span>], different types of evidence syntheses that respond to relevant stakeholder questions, for example, gap maps and scoping reviews, and sharing of best practice and case studies to improve efficiencies in evidence synthesis production and ensure our standards are informed by evidence. The editors also encourage accessible language to be used in all submissions, to benefit researchers from across disciplines, nonnative English speakers, and consumers of health.</p><p>We are committed to high research integrity and authors will be able to showcase how they adhere to these practices through research integrity indicators. This includes having a clearly stated question with evidence of stakeholder need or research that informed the question to address issues of unnecessary or duplicative research. For the evidence synthesis we receive, we encourage authors to use patient-important outcomes and/or standardized outcomes, such as those defined by COMET [<span>4</span>]. <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i> will also follow Cochrane's conflict of interest policy, expect data sharing, when feasible, and adherence to reporting guidelines, as well as encourage statements about consumer involvement in the research. All of this aims to ensure the research we publish is impactful and combats areas of research waste.</p><p>Our first published paper is the rapid review on the effect of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of people with post-COVID-19 [<span>5</span>], which is an exemplar of the types of rapid reviews we will feature. The authors worke","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50139220","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 impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta-analysis 盲法对试验结果的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2023-03-06 DOI: 10.1101/2023.03.05.23286821

T. Pitre, Sarah Kirsh, T. Jassal, Mason Anderson, Adelia Padoan, Alexander Xiang, J. Mah, D. Zeraatkar

Background: Blinding, the concealment of the arm to which participants have been randomized, is an important consideration for assessing risk of bias of randomized trials. A growing body of evidence has, however, yielded inconsistent results on whether trials without blinding produce biased findings. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis of the evidence addressing whether trials with and without blinding produce different results. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, JBI EBP, and Web of Science, from inception to May 2022, for studies comparing the results of trials with and without blinding. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search results for eligible studies and extracted data. We pooled the results of studies comparing trials with and without blinding of patients, healthcare providers/investigators, and outcome assessors/adjudicators using frequentist random-effects meta-analyses. We coded study results such that a ratio of odds ratio (ROR) < 1 and difference in standardized mean difference (dSMD) < 0 indicate that trials without blinding overestimate treatment effects. Results: We identified 47 eligible studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers, outcome assessors/adjudicators, and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. For continuous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors/adjudicators and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that blinding may influence trial results in select situations, albeit the findings are of low certainty and the magnitude of effect is modest. In the absence of high certainty evidence suggesting that trials with and without blinding produce similar results, investigators should be cautious about interpreting the results of trials without blinding.

背景:盲法，即受试者被随机分配到的手臂的隐蔽性，是评估随机试验偏倚风险的重要考虑因素。然而，关于非盲法试验是否会产生有偏见的结果，越来越多的证据得出了不一致的结果。目的:对采用和不采用盲法的试验是否产生不同结果的证据进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法:我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Reviews、JBI EBP和Web of Science，检索时间从开始到2022年5月，以比较使用和不使用盲法的试验结果。成对的审稿人，独立工作，一式两份，审查符合条件的研究和提取数据的搜索结果。我们汇总了使用频率随机效应荟萃分析比较患者、医疗保健提供者/研究者和结局评估者/评判者采用和不采用盲法的试验的研究结果。我们对研究结果进行编码，使比值比(ROR) < 1和标准化平均差(dSMD)差异< 0表明未采用盲法的试验高估了治疗效果。结果:我们确定了47项符合条件的研究。对于二分类结果，我们发现低确定性证据表明，没有对患者和医疗保健提供者、结果评估者/裁决者和患者进行盲法的试验可能会略微高估治疗效果。对于连续结果，我们发现低确定性证据表明，没有对结果评估者/评审者和患者进行盲法的试验可能会略微高估治疗效果。结论:我们的系统综述和荟萃分析表明，在某些情况下，盲法可能会影响试验结果，尽管研究结果的确定性较低，影响程度也不大。在缺乏高确定性证据表明使用和不使用盲法的试验产生相似结果的情况下，研究者在解释不使用盲法的试验结果时应谨慎。

{"title":"The impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"T. Pitre, Sarah Kirsh, T. Jassal, Mason Anderson, Adelia Padoan, Alexander Xiang, J. Mah, D. Zeraatkar","doi":"10.1101/2023.03.05.23286821","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.05.23286821","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Blinding, the concealment of the arm to which participants have been randomized, is an important consideration for assessing risk of bias of randomized trials. A growing body of evidence has, however, yielded inconsistent results on whether trials without blinding produce biased findings. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis of the evidence addressing whether trials with and without blinding produce different results. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, JBI EBP, and Web of Science, from inception to May 2022, for studies comparing the results of trials with and without blinding. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search results for eligible studies and extracted data. We pooled the results of studies comparing trials with and without blinding of patients, healthcare providers/investigators, and outcome assessors/adjudicators using frequentist random-effects meta-analyses. We coded study results such that a ratio of odds ratio (ROR) < 1 and difference in standardized mean difference (dSMD) < 0 indicate that trials without blinding overestimate treatment effects. Results: We identified 47 eligible studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers, outcome assessors/adjudicators, and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. For continuous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors/adjudicators and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that blinding may influence trial results in select situations, albeit the findings are of low certainty and the magnitude of effect is modest. In the absence of high certainty evidence suggesting that trials with and without blinding produce similar results, investigators should be cautious about interpreting the results of trials without blinding.","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91339661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

首页上一页

1
2
3
4
5
6
7