系统综述、综述和比较有效性综述:知识综合方法的讨论

Lisa Hartling, Ben Vandermeer, Ricardo M Fernandes
{"title":"系统综述、综述和比较有效性综述:知识综合方法的讨论","authors":"Lisa Hartling,&nbsp;Ben Vandermeer,&nbsp;Ricardo M Fernandes","doi":"10.1002/ebch.1968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The Cochrane Collaboration has been at the forefront of developing methods for knowledge synthesis internationally.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We discuss three approaches to synthesize evidence for healthcare interventions: systematic reviews (SRs), overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We illustrate these approaches with examples from knowledge syntheses on interventions for bronchiolitis, a common acute paediatric condition. Some of the differences among these approaches are subtle and methods are not necessarily mutually exclusive to a single review type.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results and Conclusions:</h3>\n \n <p>Systematic reviews bring together evidence from multiple studies in a rigorous fashion for a single intervention or group of interventions. Systematic reviews, as they have developed within healthcare, often focus on single or select interventions and direct pairwise comparisons; therefore, end-users may need to read several individual SRs to inform decision making. Overviews of reviews compile information from multiple SRs relevant to a single health problem. Overviews provide the end-user with a quick overview of the available evidence; however, overviews are dependent on the methods and decisions employed at the SR level. Furthermore, overviews do not often integrate evidence from different SRs quantitatively. Comparative effectiveness reviews, as we define them here, synthesize relevant evidence from individual studies to describe the relative benefits (or harms) of a range of interventions. Comparative effectiveness reviews may use statistical methods (network meta-analysis) to incorporate direct and indirect evidence; therefore, they can provide stronger inferences about the relative effectiveness (or safety) of interventions. While potentially more expensive and time-consuming to produce, a comparative effectiveness review provides a synthesis of a range of interventions for a given condition and the relative efficacy across interventions using consistent and standardized methodology.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12162,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ebch.1968","citationCount":"47","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic reviews, overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews: a discussion of approaches to knowledge synthesis\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Hartling,&nbsp;Ben Vandermeer,&nbsp;Ricardo M Fernandes\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ebch.1968\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The Cochrane Collaboration has been at the forefront of developing methods for knowledge synthesis internationally.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>We discuss three approaches to synthesize evidence for healthcare interventions: systematic reviews (SRs), overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We illustrate these approaches with examples from knowledge syntheses on interventions for bronchiolitis, a common acute paediatric condition. Some of the differences among these approaches are subtle and methods are not necessarily mutually exclusive to a single review type.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results and Conclusions:</h3>\\n \\n <p>Systematic reviews bring together evidence from multiple studies in a rigorous fashion for a single intervention or group of interventions. Systematic reviews, as they have developed within healthcare, often focus on single or select interventions and direct pairwise comparisons; therefore, end-users may need to read several individual SRs to inform decision making. Overviews of reviews compile information from multiple SRs relevant to a single health problem. Overviews provide the end-user with a quick overview of the available evidence; however, overviews are dependent on the methods and decisions employed at the SR level. Furthermore, overviews do not often integrate evidence from different SRs quantitatively. Comparative effectiveness reviews, as we define them here, synthesize relevant evidence from individual studies to describe the relative benefits (or harms) of a range of interventions. Comparative effectiveness reviews may use statistical methods (network meta-analysis) to incorporate direct and indirect evidence; therefore, they can provide stronger inferences about the relative effectiveness (or safety) of interventions. While potentially more expensive and time-consuming to produce, a comparative effectiveness review provides a synthesis of a range of interventions for a given condition and the relative efficacy across interventions using consistent and standardized methodology.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ebch.1968\",\"citationCount\":\"47\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ebch.1968\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ebch.1968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 47

摘要

Cochrane协作一直处于国际知识合成方法发展的前沿。我们讨论了三种综合医疗干预证据的方法:系统评价(SRs)、综述和比较有效性评价。方法我们举例说明这些方法从知识综合干预细支气管炎,一种常见的急性儿科疾病的例子。这些方法之间的一些差异是微妙的,并且方法并不一定相互排斥于单一的审查类型。结果和结论:系统评价以严格的方式汇集了单一干预或干预组的多项研究的证据。在医疗保健系统评价,他们已经开发出,通常专注于单一或选择干预和直接成对比较;因此,最终用户可能需要阅读几个单独的sr来为决策提供信息。审查概述汇编了与单一健康问题相关的多个特别报告的信息。概述为最终用户提供了对现有证据的快速概述;然而,概述依赖于SR级别所采用的方法和决策。此外,概述通常不能定量地整合来自不同SRs的证据。比较有效性评价,正如我们在这里定义的那样,综合来自个别研究的相关证据来描述一系列干预措施的相对益处(或危害)。比较有效性评价可以使用统计方法(网络荟萃分析)来纳入直接和间接证据;因此,它们可以对干预措施的相对有效性(或安全性)提供更有力的推断。虽然制作起来可能更加昂贵和耗时,但比较有效性审查提供了针对特定条件的一系列干预措施的综合,以及使用一致和标准化方法的干预措施的相对有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic reviews, overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews: a discussion of approaches to knowledge synthesis

Background

The Cochrane Collaboration has been at the forefront of developing methods for knowledge synthesis internationally.

Objectives

We discuss three approaches to synthesize evidence for healthcare interventions: systematic reviews (SRs), overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews.

Methods

We illustrate these approaches with examples from knowledge syntheses on interventions for bronchiolitis, a common acute paediatric condition. Some of the differences among these approaches are subtle and methods are not necessarily mutually exclusive to a single review type.

Results and Conclusions:

Systematic reviews bring together evidence from multiple studies in a rigorous fashion for a single intervention or group of interventions. Systematic reviews, as they have developed within healthcare, often focus on single or select interventions and direct pairwise comparisons; therefore, end-users may need to read several individual SRs to inform decision making. Overviews of reviews compile information from multiple SRs relevant to a single health problem. Overviews provide the end-user with a quick overview of the available evidence; however, overviews are dependent on the methods and decisions employed at the SR level. Furthermore, overviews do not often integrate evidence from different SRs quantitatively. Comparative effectiveness reviews, as we define them here, synthesize relevant evidence from individual studies to describe the relative benefits (or harms) of a range of interventions. Comparative effectiveness reviews may use statistical methods (network meta-analysis) to incorporate direct and indirect evidence; therefore, they can provide stronger inferences about the relative effectiveness (or safety) of interventions. While potentially more expensive and time-consuming to produce, a comparative effectiveness review provides a synthesis of a range of interventions for a given condition and the relative efficacy across interventions using consistent and standardized methodology.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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