系统性综述的偏倚风险和报告质量评估的信息价值案例研究。

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-09-07 DOI:10.1186/s13643-024-02650-w
Cathalijn H C Leenaars, Frans R Stafleu, Christine Häger, André Bleich
{"title":"系统性综述的偏倚风险和报告质量评估的信息价值案例研究。","authors":"Cathalijn H C Leenaars, Frans R Stafleu, Christine Häger, André Bleich","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02650-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While undisputedly important, and part of any systematic review (SR) by definition, evaluation of the risk of bias within the included studies is one of the most time-consuming parts of performing an SR. In this paper, we describe a case study comprising an extensive analysis of risk of bias (RoB) and reporting quality (RQ) assessment from a previously published review (CRD42021236047). It included both animal and human studies, and the included studies compared baseline diseased subjects with controls, assessed the effects of investigational treatments, or both. We compared RoB and RQ between the different types of included primary studies. We also assessed the \"informative value\" of each of the separate elements for meta-researchers, based on the notion that variation in reporting may be more interesting for the meta-researcher than consistently high/low or reported/non-reported scores. In general, reporting of experimental details was low. This resulted in frequent unclear risk-of-bias scores. We observed this both for animal and for human studies and both for disease-control comparisons and investigations of experimental treatments. Plots and explorative chi-square tests showed that reporting was slightly better for human studies of investigational treatments than for the other study types. With the evidence reported as is, risk-of-bias assessments for systematic reviews have low informative value other than repeatedly showing that reporting of experimental details needs to improve in all kinds of in vivo research. Particularly for reviews that do not directly inform treatment decisions, it could be efficient to perform a thorough but partial assessment of the quality of the included studies, either of a random subset of the included publications or of a subset of relatively informative elements, comprising, e.g. ethics evaluation, conflicts of interest statements, study limitations, baseline characteristics, and the unit of analysis. This publication suggests several potential procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"13 1","pages":"230"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11380326/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A case study of the informative value of risk of bias and reporting quality assessments for systematic reviews.\",\"authors\":\"Cathalijn H C Leenaars, Frans R Stafleu, Christine Häger, André Bleich\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-024-02650-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While undisputedly important, and part of any systematic review (SR) by definition, evaluation of the risk of bias within the included studies is one of the most time-consuming parts of performing an SR. In this paper, we describe a case study comprising an extensive analysis of risk of bias (RoB) and reporting quality (RQ) assessment from a previously published review (CRD42021236047). It included both animal and human studies, and the included studies compared baseline diseased subjects with controls, assessed the effects of investigational treatments, or both. We compared RoB and RQ between the different types of included primary studies. We also assessed the \\\"informative value\\\" of each of the separate elements for meta-researchers, based on the notion that variation in reporting may be more interesting for the meta-researcher than consistently high/low or reported/non-reported scores. In general, reporting of experimental details was low. This resulted in frequent unclear risk-of-bias scores. We observed this both for animal and for human studies and both for disease-control comparisons and investigations of experimental treatments. Plots and explorative chi-square tests showed that reporting was slightly better for human studies of investigational treatments than for the other study types. With the evidence reported as is, risk-of-bias assessments for systematic reviews have low informative value other than repeatedly showing that reporting of experimental details needs to improve in all kinds of in vivo research. Particularly for reviews that do not directly inform treatment decisions, it could be efficient to perform a thorough but partial assessment of the quality of the included studies, either of a random subset of the included publications or of a subset of relatively informative elements, comprising, e.g. ethics evaluation, conflicts of interest statements, study limitations, baseline characteristics, and the unit of analysis. This publication suggests several potential procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"230\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11380326/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02650-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02650-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对纳入研究的偏倚风险进行评估是进行系统综述(SR)最耗时的部分之一,这一点毋庸置疑,而且也是任何系统综述(SR)的一部分。在本文中,我们介绍了一项案例研究,其中包括对之前发表的一篇综述(CRD42021236047)的偏倚风险(RoB)和报告质量(RQ)评估的广泛分析。该研究既包括动物研究,也包括人体研究,所纳入的研究将基线患病对象与对照组进行了比较,或评估了研究性治疗的效果,或两者兼而有之。我们比较了纳入的不同类型主要研究的 RoB 和 RQ。我们还评估了每项独立要素对元研究者的 "信息价值",因为元研究者认为报告中的差异可能比一致的高分/低分或已报告/未报告得分更有意义。一般来说,实验细节的报告较少。这导致偏倚风险评分经常不明确。我们在动物研究和人体研究中,以及在疾病对照比较和实验治疗调查中都发现了这种情况。曲线图和探索性的卡方检验表明,与其他研究类型相比,人类试验性治疗研究的报告情况略好。根据目前报告的证据,对系统综述进行偏倚风险评估的信息价值很低,只能反复表明在所有类型的体内研究中,实验细节的报告都需要改进。特别是对于不直接为治疗决策提供信息的综述,对所纳入研究的质量进行全面但不全面的评估可能会很有效,评估可以是对所纳入出版物的随机子集进行评估,也可以是对相对有参考价值的要素的子集进行评估,这些要素包括伦理评估、利益冲突声明、研究限制、基线特征和分析单位等。本出版物提出了几种可能的程序。
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
A case study of the informative value of risk of bias and reporting quality assessments for systematic reviews.

While undisputedly important, and part of any systematic review (SR) by definition, evaluation of the risk of bias within the included studies is one of the most time-consuming parts of performing an SR. In this paper, we describe a case study comprising an extensive analysis of risk of bias (RoB) and reporting quality (RQ) assessment from a previously published review (CRD42021236047). It included both animal and human studies, and the included studies compared baseline diseased subjects with controls, assessed the effects of investigational treatments, or both. We compared RoB and RQ between the different types of included primary studies. We also assessed the "informative value" of each of the separate elements for meta-researchers, based on the notion that variation in reporting may be more interesting for the meta-researcher than consistently high/low or reported/non-reported scores. In general, reporting of experimental details was low. This resulted in frequent unclear risk-of-bias scores. We observed this both for animal and for human studies and both for disease-control comparisons and investigations of experimental treatments. Plots and explorative chi-square tests showed that reporting was slightly better for human studies of investigational treatments than for the other study types. With the evidence reported as is, risk-of-bias assessments for systematic reviews have low informative value other than repeatedly showing that reporting of experimental details needs to improve in all kinds of in vivo research. Particularly for reviews that do not directly inform treatment decisions, it could be efficient to perform a thorough but partial assessment of the quality of the included studies, either of a random subset of the included publications or of a subset of relatively informative elements, comprising, e.g. ethics evaluation, conflicts of interest statements, study limitations, baseline characteristics, and the unit of analysis. This publication suggests several potential procedures.

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
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Choice of primary healthcare providers among population in urban areas of low- and middle-income countries-a protocol for systematic review of literature. Computer-assisted screening in systematic evidence synthesis requires robust and well-evaluated stopping criteria. Patient-related prognostic factors for function and pain after shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. The psychometric properties of instruments measuring ethical sensitivity in nursing: a systematic review. Barriers and facilitators to enrollment in pediatric clinical trials: an overview of systematic reviews.
×
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