- Book学术

发布求助

文献互助智能选刊最新文献

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1002/cesm.70015

M. Ringsten, K. Färnqvist, M. Bruschettini, M. Johansson

{"title":"Inclusion, characteristics and methodological limitations of systematic reviews in doctoral theses: A cross-sectional study of all universities in Sweden","authors":"M. Ringsten, K. Färnqvist, M. Bruschettini, M. Johansson","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Intro</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic review (SR) attempts to find, assess and summarize all the empirical evidence to answer a specific research question. We aim to explore to what extent reviews are included in doctoral theses from all universities with a medical faculty in Sweden, and to describe the type, topic and assess the methodological quality of the reviews.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Duplicate assessors independently searched local and national repositories for doctoral theses published in 2021 within all seven medical faculties in Sweden, and categorized identified reviews based on review type, topic, and methodological quality using AMSTAR-2.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>5.4% (45/852) of all doctoral theses included a review, and 1.3% (45/3461) of all included studies were reviews. Of these, two thirds (31) were SRs and the rest (14) were broader ‘big picture’ reviews. The most common topics were interventions (42%) and exposure/etiology (32%), with no reviews of diagnostic tests. The majority of the SRs had very low (71%) or low (19%) quality, and few reached a high (7%) or moderate (3%) quality. The most common issues were limitations with protocols, limited search strategies, and failure to account for risk of bias in drawn conclusions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Few doctoral students included SRs in their theses, and the few SRs included in doctoral theses generally had a low quality. There is no consensus on the appropriate proportion of doctoral thesis including a SR. We argue that conducting a SR within a doctoral thesis can reduce redundant, harmful and unethical research, identify knowledge gaps, and help the doctoral student obtain important skills to conduct and use research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70015","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.70015","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

系统综述（SR）试图找到、评估和总结所有的实证证据来回答一个特定的研究问题。我们的目标是探索在瑞典所有有医学院的大学的博士论文中有多少综述，并描述综述的类型、主题和评估综述的方法学质量。方法重复评估人员独立检索瑞典所有7个医学院2021年发表的博士论文的地方和国家知识库，并使用AMSTAR-2根据综述类型、主题和方法学质量对已确定的综述进行分类。结果5.4%（45/852）的博士论文包含综述，1.3%（45/3461）的博士论文为综述。其中，三分之二（31篇）是SRs，其余（14篇）是更广泛的“大局”评论。最常见的主题是干预措施（42%）和暴露/病因学（32%），没有对诊断测试的回顾。大多数SRs具有非常低（71%）或低（19%）的质量，少数达到高（7%）或中等（3%）的质量。最常见的问题是方案的局限性，有限的搜索策略，以及未能考虑得出结论的偏倚风险。结论博士生在论文中纳入SRs的情况较少，且被纳入的SRs普遍质量较低。关于博士论文中包含SR的适当比例尚未达成共识。我们认为，在博士论文中进行SR可以减少冗余，有害和不道德的研究，识别知识空白，并帮助博士生获得进行和使用研究的重要技能。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Inclusion, characteristics and methodological limitations of systematic reviews in doctoral theses: A cross-sectional study of all universities in Sweden

Intro

A systematic review (SR) attempts to find, assess and summarize all the empirical evidence to answer a specific research question. We aim to explore to what extent reviews are included in doctoral theses from all universities with a medical faculty in Sweden, and to describe the type, topic and assess the methodological quality of the reviews.

Methods

Duplicate assessors independently searched local and national repositories for doctoral theses published in 2021 within all seven medical faculties in Sweden, and categorized identified reviews based on review type, topic, and methodological quality using AMSTAR-2.

Results

5.4% (45/852) of all doctoral theses included a review, and 1.3% (45/3461) of all included studies were reviews. Of these, two thirds (31) were SRs and the rest (14) were broader ‘big picture’ reviews. The most common topics were interventions (42%) and exposure/etiology (32%), with no reviews of diagnostic tests. The majority of the SRs had very low (71%) or low (19%) quality, and few reached a high (7%) or moderate (3%) quality. The most common issues were limitations with protocols, limited search strategies, and failure to account for risk of bias in drawn conclusions.

Conclusions

Few doctoral students included SRs in their theses, and the few SRs included in doctoral theses generally had a low quality. There is no consensus on the appropriate proportion of doctoral thesis including a SR. We argue that conducting a SR within a doctoral thesis can reduce redundant, harmful and unethical research, identify knowledge gaps, and help the doctoral student obtain important skills to conduct and use research.

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

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

自引率

0.00%

发文量