外科系统性综述:最佳可用证据还是一次性废物?

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY Innovative Surgical Sciences Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.1515/iss-2022-0029
R. Klotz, S. Tenckhoff, Pascal Probst
{"title":"外科系统性综述:最佳可用证据还是一次性废物?","authors":"R. Klotz, S. Tenckhoff, Pascal Probst","doi":"10.1515/iss-2022-0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Evidence-based medicine demands treatment options for patients to be based on the current best available evidence. Systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses allow surgeons to make therapeutical decisions in accordance with the highest level of evidence. Also, high-quality SRs support physicians to challenge the colossal amount of new research data created daily. The systematic review working group of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC) has created specific methodological literature regarding surgical SRs, giving recommendations to assess critical risk of bias and to prevent the creation of SRs that do not provide any new insights to the field. SRs should only be considered if there is new clinically relevant data available that allows the SR to create novel evidence. To address the dilemma of new SRs generated without adding new evidence, living systematic reviews and evidence mapping represent an innovative approach, in which SRs are regularly updated with new research data.","PeriodicalId":44186,"journal":{"name":"Innovative Surgical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical systematic reviews: best available evidence or disposable waste?\",\"authors\":\"R. Klotz, S. Tenckhoff, Pascal Probst\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/iss-2022-0029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Evidence-based medicine demands treatment options for patients to be based on the current best available evidence. Systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses allow surgeons to make therapeutical decisions in accordance with the highest level of evidence. Also, high-quality SRs support physicians to challenge the colossal amount of new research data created daily. The systematic review working group of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC) has created specific methodological literature regarding surgical SRs, giving recommendations to assess critical risk of bias and to prevent the creation of SRs that do not provide any new insights to the field. SRs should only be considered if there is new clinically relevant data available that allows the SR to create novel evidence. To address the dilemma of new SRs generated without adding new evidence, living systematic reviews and evidence mapping represent an innovative approach, in which SRs are regularly updated with new research data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovative Surgical Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovative Surgical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2022-0029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovative Surgical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2022-0029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

循证医学要求根据现有的最佳证据为患者提供治疗方案。带有荟萃分析的系统综述(SR)可以让外科医生根据最高水平的证据做出治疗决策。此外,高质量的系统综述还有助于医生对每天产生的大量新研究数据提出质疑。德国外科学会研究中心(SDGC)的系统性综述工作组已就外科系统性综述撰写了专门的方法论文献,提出了评估关键的偏倚风险的建议,并防止出现无法为该领域提供任何新见解的系统性综述。只有在有新的临床相关数据,且SR能提供新证据的情况下,才应考虑SR。为解决新SR产生但未增加新证据的难题,活的系统综述和证据图谱代表了一种创新方法,即定期用新的研究数据更新SR。
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
Surgical systematic reviews: best available evidence or disposable waste?
Evidence-based medicine demands treatment options for patients to be based on the current best available evidence. Systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses allow surgeons to make therapeutical decisions in accordance with the highest level of evidence. Also, high-quality SRs support physicians to challenge the colossal amount of new research data created daily. The systematic review working group of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC) has created specific methodological literature regarding surgical SRs, giving recommendations to assess critical risk of bias and to prevent the creation of SRs that do not provide any new insights to the field. SRs should only be considered if there is new clinically relevant data available that allows the SR to create novel evidence. To address the dilemma of new SRs generated without adding new evidence, living systematic reviews and evidence mapping represent an innovative approach, in which SRs are regularly updated with new research data.
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
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Right hepatectomy in absence of the left portal vein using the porto-rex shunt procedure Voluminous hiatal hernias – the role of robotic surgery Trastuzumab holds potential to accelerate spontaneous sensory reinnervation after free flap breast reconstruction: a proof of concept The effect of adipose-derived stem cells (ADSC) treatment on kidney histopathological appearance on the Wistar rat models with grade five kidney trauma Ileal free flap for hypopharynx reconstruction – case series
×
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