系统回顾和荟萃分析:对方法论的批判性检查

S. Yu. Martsevich S.Yu., A. R. Navasardyan, K. V. Lobastov, M. V. Mikaelyan, E. V. Mikhaylenko, A. Yu. Suvorov, I. V. Schastlivtsev, O. N. Dzhioeva, V. V. Matveev, E. S. Akimova, V. V. Sytkov, E. Dubar, O. M. Drapkina
{"title":"系统回顾和荟萃分析:对方法论的批判性检查","authors":"S. Yu. Martsevich S.Yu., A. R. Navasardyan, K. V. Lobastov, M. V. Mikaelyan, E. V. Mikhaylenko, A. Yu. Suvorov, I. V. Schastlivtsev, O. N. Dzhioeva, V. V. Matveev, E. S. Akimova, V. V. Sytkov, E. Dubar, O. M. Drapkina","doi":"10.20996/1819-6446-2023-2923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nowadays, the pyramid of evidence is the main model of decision-making for healthcare professionals. According to this concept, data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered lower in hierarchy than data obtained from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). However, it заменить на:is not established whether it is appropriate to rate large RCTs with hard endpoints lower than SRs and MAs that combine data from smaller RCTs of questionable quality, or even from prospective or retrospective observational studies. It is also important to consider that in addition to assessing the quality of the studies included in the SRs and MAs, it is necessary to assess the accuracy of the SRs and MAs themselves. If not rigorously conducted, they can also contain systematic errors, leading to increased risks of data manipulation. The publication covers the main stages and principles of preparing SRs and MAs, common types of systematic errors that can arise at each stage, and methods to minimize them. We believe that the tools, knowledge, and skills we offer will help practicing doctors and healthcare professionals critically assess the results obtained from SRs and MAs in terms of methodology and the mitigation of potential data manipulation risks.","PeriodicalId":20759,"journal":{"name":"Racionalʹnaâ Farmakoterapiâ v Kardiologii","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review and meta-analysis: a critical examination of the methodology\",\"authors\":\"S. Yu. Martsevich S.Yu., A. R. Navasardyan, K. V. Lobastov, M. V. Mikaelyan, E. V. Mikhaylenko, A. Yu. Suvorov, I. V. Schastlivtsev, O. N. Dzhioeva, V. V. Matveev, E. S. Akimova, V. V. Sytkov, E. Dubar, O. M. Drapkina\",\"doi\":\"10.20996/1819-6446-2023-2923\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Nowadays, the pyramid of evidence is the main model of decision-making for healthcare professionals. According to this concept, data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered lower in hierarchy than data obtained from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). However, it заменить на:is not established whether it is appropriate to rate large RCTs with hard endpoints lower than SRs and MAs that combine data from smaller RCTs of questionable quality, or even from prospective or retrospective observational studies. It is also important to consider that in addition to assessing the quality of the studies included in the SRs and MAs, it is necessary to assess the accuracy of the SRs and MAs themselves. If not rigorously conducted, they can also contain systematic errors, leading to increased risks of data manipulation. The publication covers the main stages and principles of preparing SRs and MAs, common types of systematic errors that can arise at each stage, and methods to minimize them. We believe that the tools, knowledge, and skills we offer will help practicing doctors and healthcare professionals critically assess the results obtained from SRs and MAs in terms of methodology and the mitigation of potential data manipulation risks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Racionalʹnaâ Farmakoterapiâ v Kardiologii\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Racionalʹnaâ Farmakoterapiâ v Kardiologii\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20996/1819-6446-2023-2923\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Racionalʹnaâ Farmakoterapiâ v Kardiologii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20996/1819-6446-2023-2923","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如今,证据金字塔是医疗保健专业人员决策的主要模型。根据这一概念,来自随机临床试验(rct)的数据被认为比来自系统评价(SRs)和荟萃分析(MAs)的数据层次更低。然而,заменить на:尚未确定是否适合对硬终点低于SRs和ma的大型随机对照试验进行评级,这些随机对照试验结合了质量有问题的小型随机对照试验的数据,甚至来自前瞻性或回顾性观察性研究。同样重要的是要考虑到,除了评估纳入SRs和ma的研究的质量外,有必要评估SRs和ma本身的准确性。如果不严格执行,它们还可能包含系统错误,从而增加数据操纵的风险。该出版物涵盖了编制SRs和ma的主要阶段和原则,每个阶段可能出现的常见系统误差类型,以及将其最小化的方法。我们相信,我们提供的工具、知识和技能将有助于执业医生和医疗保健专业人员在方法学和减轻潜在数据操纵风险方面严格评估从SRs和MAs获得的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Systematic review and meta-analysis: a critical examination of the methodology
Nowadays, the pyramid of evidence is the main model of decision-making for healthcare professionals. According to this concept, data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered lower in hierarchy than data obtained from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). However, it заменить на:is not established whether it is appropriate to rate large RCTs with hard endpoints lower than SRs and MAs that combine data from smaller RCTs of questionable quality, or even from prospective or retrospective observational studies. It is also important to consider that in addition to assessing the quality of the studies included in the SRs and MAs, it is necessary to assess the accuracy of the SRs and MAs themselves. If not rigorously conducted, they can also contain systematic errors, leading to increased risks of data manipulation. The publication covers the main stages and principles of preparing SRs and MAs, common types of systematic errors that can arise at each stage, and methods to minimize them. We believe that the tools, knowledge, and skills we offer will help practicing doctors and healthcare professionals critically assess the results obtained from SRs and MAs in terms of methodology and the mitigation of potential data manipulation risks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bedside ultrasound assessment of venous congestion by VExUS protocol in heart failure: clinical associations and prognostic value Wellens’ syndrome in clinical practice Biomarkers in predicting mortality from cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure and an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator Systematic review and meta-analysis: a critical examination of the methodology Pulmonary hypertension and heart failure: alternative indexes of right ventricular-pulmonary artery coupling
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
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
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
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
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