Yet another problem with systematic reviews: A living review update.

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lesley Uttley, Yuliang Weng, Louise Falzon
{"title":"Yet another problem with systematic reviews: A living review update.","authors":"Lesley Uttley, Yuliang Weng, Louise Falzon","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In February 2023, the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology published 'The Problems with Systematic Reviews: A living Systematic Review.' In updating this living review for the first time to incorporate literature from May 2022 to May 2023, a new problem and several themes have emerged from 152 newly included articles relating to research culture This brings the total number of relevant articles up to 637 and the total number of problems with systematic reviews up to 68. This update documents a new problem: the lack of gender diversity of systematic review author teams. It also reveals emerging themes such as: fast science from systematic reviews on COVID-19; the failure of citation of methodological or reporting guidelines to predict high-quality methodological or reporting quality; and the influence of vested interests on systematic review conclusions. These findings coupled with a proliferation of research waste from \"me-too\" meta-research articles highlighting well-established problems in systematic reviews underscores the need for reforms in research culture to address the incentives for producing and publishing research papers. This update reports where the identified flaws in systematic reviews affect their conclusions drawing on 77 meta-epidemiological studies from the total 637 included articles. These meta-meta-analytic studies begin the important work of examining which problems threaten the reliability and validity of treatment effects or conclusions derived from systematic reviews. We recommend that meta-research endeavours evolve from merely documenting well-established issues to understanding lesser-known problems or consequences to systematic reviews.</p>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"111608"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111608","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In February 2023, the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology published 'The Problems with Systematic Reviews: A living Systematic Review.' In updating this living review for the first time to incorporate literature from May 2022 to May 2023, a new problem and several themes have emerged from 152 newly included articles relating to research culture This brings the total number of relevant articles up to 637 and the total number of problems with systematic reviews up to 68. This update documents a new problem: the lack of gender diversity of systematic review author teams. It also reveals emerging themes such as: fast science from systematic reviews on COVID-19; the failure of citation of methodological or reporting guidelines to predict high-quality methodological or reporting quality; and the influence of vested interests on systematic review conclusions. These findings coupled with a proliferation of research waste from "me-too" meta-research articles highlighting well-established problems in systematic reviews underscores the need for reforms in research culture to address the incentives for producing and publishing research papers. This update reports where the identified flaws in systematic reviews affect their conclusions drawing on 77 meta-epidemiological studies from the total 637 included articles. These meta-meta-analytic studies begin the important work of examining which problems threaten the reliability and validity of treatment effects or conclusions derived from systematic reviews. We recommend that meta-research endeavours evolve from merely documenting well-established issues to understanding lesser-known problems or consequences to systematic reviews.

系统性综述的另一个问题:活生生的评论更新。
2023 年 2 月,《临床流行病学杂志》发表了《系统综述的问题》:一篇活生生的系统综述》。在对这一动态综述进行首次更新,纳入 2022 年 5 月至 2023 年 5 月期间的文献时,从新纳入的 152 篇与研究文化相关的文章中发现了一个新问题和几个主题,从而使相关文章总数达到 637 篇,系统综述的问题总数达到 68 个。本次更新记录了一个新问题:系统综述作者团队缺乏性别多样性。它还揭示了一些新出现的主题,如:COVID-19 系统综述中的快速科学;引用方法或报告指南无法预测高质量的方法或报告质量;以及既得利益对系统综述结论的影响。这些发现以及 "我也是 "元研究文章造成的研究浪费激增,凸显了系统综述中存在的公认问题,这突出表明有必要对研究文化进行改革,以解决生产和发表研究论文的激励机制问题。本更新报告从总共 637 篇文章中选取了 77 篇元流行病学研究,报告了系统综述中已发现的缺陷对其结论的影响。这些元-元分析研究开始了一项重要工作,即研究哪些问题会威胁治疗效果或系统综述结论的可靠性和有效性。我们建议,元研究工作应从仅仅记录公认的问题发展到了解鲜为人知的问题或系统性综述的后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信