Donghua Yang, Yongjia Zhou, Xiao Tang, Tianyi Zhang, Yiyi Li, Jun Zhang, Jinhui Tian, Limei Yang
{"title":"快速回顾报告需要质量改进：基于Cochrane RR循证方法的文献质量评估。","authors":"Donghua Yang, Yongjia Zhou, Xiao Tang, Tianyi Zhang, Yiyi Li, Jun Zhang, Jinhui Tian, Limei Yang","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02870-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of rapid reviews (RRs) against the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methodological Guidance to identify areas for improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature quality assessment was conducted through systematic searches in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until February 28, 2023. An expert guided the search strategy, and the reporting quality of RRs was evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize reporting quality, and subgroup analyses were performed to examine differences between groups. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square (χ<sup>2</sup>) test to identify statistically significant differences in reporting adherence across different subgroups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 112 rapid reviews analyzed, fewer than 50% fully reported four key methodological components: topic refinement with stakeholders, eligibility criteria co-definition, risk of bias assessment tools, and protocol/software reporting. Reports published after 2021 demonstrated slightly higher overall quality compared to those published before 2020, with significant improvements in protocol development (Item 2: χ<sup>2</sup> = 10.434, P < 0.0001), PICOS specification (Item 3: χ<sup>2</sup> = 5.378, P = 0.02), and protocol registration (Item 23: χ<sup>2</sup> = 6.638, P = 0.01). Cochrane Rapid Reviews (CRRs) achieved 100% compliance in several key areas, including setting restrictions with justification (Item 4: χ<sup>2</sup> = 52.923, P < 0.001) and study selection (Item 14: χ<sup>2</sup> = 14.897, P < 0.001). The impact of journal prestige was also evident: publications in high-impact factor (IF > 5) journals showed significantly better compliance in stakeholder involvement (Item 1: χ<sup>2</sup> = 8.856, P = 0.003) but comparable adherence to protocol registration (Item 23: ≤ 20.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While RR quality is improving post-2021, critical gaps persist in stakeholder engagement and protocol transparency. Mandatory adoption of Cochrane guidelines-particularly protocol registration (Item23) and dual data extraction (Item17)-should be prioritized in journal submission policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"127"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12150524/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality improvement needed for rapid review reports: a literature quality assessment based on Cochrane RR evidence-based methodology.\",\"authors\":\"Donghua Yang, Yongjia Zhou, Xiao Tang, Tianyi Zhang, Yiyi Li, Jun Zhang, Jinhui Tian, Limei Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-025-02870-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of rapid reviews (RRs) against the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methodological Guidance to identify areas for improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature quality assessment was conducted through systematic searches in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until February 28, 2023. An expert guided the search strategy, and the reporting quality of RRs was evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize reporting quality, and subgroup analyses were performed to examine differences between groups. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square (χ<sup>2</sup>) test to identify statistically significant differences in reporting adherence across different subgroups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 112 rapid reviews analyzed, fewer than 50% fully reported four key methodological components: topic refinement with stakeholders, eligibility criteria co-definition, risk of bias assessment tools, and protocol/software reporting. Reports published after 2021 demonstrated slightly higher overall quality compared to those published before 2020, with significant improvements in protocol development (Item 2: χ<sup>2</sup> = 10.434, P < 0.0001), PICOS specification (Item 3: χ<sup>2</sup> = 5.378, P = 0.02), and protocol registration (Item 23: χ<sup>2</sup> = 6.638, P = 0.01). Cochrane Rapid Reviews (CRRs) achieved 100% compliance in several key areas, including setting restrictions with justification (Item 4: χ<sup>2</sup> = 52.923, P < 0.001) and study selection (Item 14: χ<sup>2</sup> = 14.897, P < 0.001). The impact of journal prestige was also evident: publications in high-impact factor (IF > 5) journals showed significantly better compliance in stakeholder involvement (Item 1: χ<sup>2</sup> = 8.856, P = 0.003) but comparable adherence to protocol registration (Item 23: ≤ 20.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While RR quality is improving post-2021, critical gaps persist in stakeholder engagement and protocol transparency. Mandatory adoption of Cochrane guidelines-particularly protocol registration (Item23) and dual data extraction (Item17)-should be prioritized in journal submission policies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"127\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12150524/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02870-8\",\"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/s13643-025-02870-8","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
目的：本研究的目的是根据Cochrane快速综述方法学指南评估快速综述（rr）的报告质量，以确定需要改进的领域。方法：通过系统检索PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Web of Science，直至2023年2月28日，对文献质量进行评估。由专家指导搜索策略，并对rr报告质量进行评价。描述性统计用于总结报告质量，并进行亚组分析以检查组间差异。使用卡方（χ2）检验比较分类变量，以确定不同亚组报告依从性的统计学差异。结果：在分析的112个快速审查中，不到50%的人完全报告了四个关键的方法组成部分：与利益相关者的主题改进、资格标准共同定义、偏见风险评估工具和协议/软件报告。2021年以后发表的报告总体质量略高于2020年以前发表的报告，在方案制定（第2项：χ2 = 10.434, P 2 = 5.378, P = 0.02）和方案注册（第23项：χ2 = 6.638, P = 0.01）方面有显著改善。Cochrane快速评价（CRRs）在几个关键领域达到了100%的依从性，包括设置有理由的限制（项目4:χ2 = 52.923, P 2 = 14.897, P 5）期刊在利益相关者参与方面的依从性明显更好（项目1:χ2 = 8.856, P = 0.003），但与方案注册的依从性相当（项目23:≤20.3%）。结论：虽然2021年后RR质量正在提高，但在利益相关者参与和协议透明度方面仍然存在重大差距。强制采用Cochrane指南——特别是方案注册（Item23）和双重数据提取（Item17）——应该优先纳入期刊投稿政策。
Quality improvement needed for rapid review reports: a literature quality assessment based on Cochrane RR evidence-based methodology.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of rapid reviews (RRs) against the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methodological Guidance to identify areas for improvement.
Methods: A literature quality assessment was conducted through systematic searches in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until February 28, 2023. An expert guided the search strategy, and the reporting quality of RRs was evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize reporting quality, and subgroup analyses were performed to examine differences between groups. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square (χ2) test to identify statistically significant differences in reporting adherence across different subgroups.
Results: Among the 112 rapid reviews analyzed, fewer than 50% fully reported four key methodological components: topic refinement with stakeholders, eligibility criteria co-definition, risk of bias assessment tools, and protocol/software reporting. Reports published after 2021 demonstrated slightly higher overall quality compared to those published before 2020, with significant improvements in protocol development (Item 2: χ2 = 10.434, P < 0.0001), PICOS specification (Item 3: χ2 = 5.378, P = 0.02), and protocol registration (Item 23: χ2 = 6.638, P = 0.01). Cochrane Rapid Reviews (CRRs) achieved 100% compliance in several key areas, including setting restrictions with justification (Item 4: χ2 = 52.923, P < 0.001) and study selection (Item 14: χ2 = 14.897, P < 0.001). The impact of journal prestige was also evident: publications in high-impact factor (IF > 5) journals showed significantly better compliance in stakeholder involvement (Item 1: χ2 = 8.856, P = 0.003) but comparable adherence to protocol registration (Item 23: ≤ 20.3%).
Conclusions: While RR quality is improving post-2021, critical gaps persist in stakeholder engagement and protocol transparency. Mandatory adoption of Cochrane guidelines-particularly protocol registration (Item23) and dual data extraction (Item17)-should be prioritized in journal submission policies.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
