呼吁在审查证据时给予更谨慎的学术研究:乳房X光检查的案例。

BJR open Pub Date : 2023-09-25 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1259/bjro.20230041
Stephen W Duffy, Laszlo Tabar, Tony H H Chen, Amy M F Yen, Peter B Dean, Robert A Smith
{"title":"呼吁在审查证据时给予更谨慎的学术研究:乳房X光检查的案例。","authors":"Stephen W Duffy, Laszlo Tabar, Tony H H Chen, Amy M F Yen, Peter B Dean, Robert A Smith","doi":"10.1259/bjro.20230041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify issues of principle and practice giving rise to misunderstandings in reviewing evidence, to illustrate these by reference to the Nordic Cochrane Review (NCR) and its interpretation of two trials of mammographic screening, and to draw lessons for future reviewing of published results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A narrative review of the publications of the Nordic Cochrane Review of mammographic screening (NCR), the Swedish Two-County Trial (S2C) and the Canadian National Breast Screening Study 1 and 2 (CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The NCR concluded that the S2C was unreliable, despite the review's complaints being shown to be mistaken, by direct reference to the original primary publications of the S2C. Repeated concerns were expressed by others about potential subversion of randomisation in CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2; however, the NCR continued to rely heavily on the results of these trials. Since 2022, however, eyewitness evidence of such subversion has been in the public domain.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An over-reliance on nominal satisfaction of checklists of criteria in systematic reviewing can lead to erroneous conclusions. This occurred in the case of the NCR, which concluded that mammographic screening was ineffective or minimally effective. Broader and more even-handed reviews of the evidence show that screening confers a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>Those carrying out systematic reviews should be aware of the dangers of over-reliance on checklists and guidelines. Readers of systematic reviews should be aware that a systematic review is just another study, with the capability that all studies have of coming to incorrect conclusions. When a review seems to overturn the current position, it is essential to revisit the publications of the primary research.</p>","PeriodicalId":72419,"journal":{"name":"BJR open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10630970/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A plea for more careful scholarship in reviewing evidence: the case of mammographic screening.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen W Duffy, Laszlo Tabar, Tony H H Chen, Amy M F Yen, Peter B Dean, Robert A Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1259/bjro.20230041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify issues of principle and practice giving rise to misunderstandings in reviewing evidence, to illustrate these by reference to the Nordic Cochrane Review (NCR) and its interpretation of two trials of mammographic screening, and to draw lessons for future reviewing of published results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A narrative review of the publications of the Nordic Cochrane Review of mammographic screening (NCR), the Swedish Two-County Trial (S2C) and the Canadian National Breast Screening Study 1 and 2 (CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The NCR concluded that the S2C was unreliable, despite the review's complaints being shown to be mistaken, by direct reference to the original primary publications of the S2C. Repeated concerns were expressed by others about potential subversion of randomisation in CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2; however, the NCR continued to rely heavily on the results of these trials. Since 2022, however, eyewitness evidence of such subversion has been in the public domain.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An over-reliance on nominal satisfaction of checklists of criteria in systematic reviewing can lead to erroneous conclusions. This occurred in the case of the NCR, which concluded that mammographic screening was ineffective or minimally effective. Broader and more even-handed reviews of the evidence show that screening confers a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>Those carrying out systematic reviews should be aware of the dangers of over-reliance on checklists and guidelines. Readers of systematic reviews should be aware that a systematic review is just another study, with the capability that all studies have of coming to incorrect conclusions. When a review seems to overturn the current position, it is essential to revisit the publications of the primary research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72419,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJR open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10630970/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJR open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20230041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJR open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20230041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定在审查证据时引起误解的原则和实践问题,通过参考Nordic Cochrane Review(NCR)及其对两项乳腺X光筛查试验的解释来说明这些问题,并为未来审查已发表的结果吸取教训。方法:对Nordic Cochrane乳腺筛查综述(NCR)、瑞典两县试验(S2C)和加拿大国家乳腺筛查研究1和2(CNBSS-1和CNBSS-2)的出版物进行叙述性综述,直接参考S2C的原始主要出版物。其他人对CNBSS-1和CNBSS-2中随机化的潜在颠覆表达了反复的担忧;然而,NCR继续严重依赖这些试验的结果。然而,自2022年以来,此类颠覆的目击者证据一直在公共领域。结论:在系统审查中,过度依赖标准清单的名义满意度可能会导致错误的结论。这种情况发生在NCR的案例中,其结论是乳房X光筛查无效或最低有效。更广泛和更公平的证据审查表明,筛查可以显著降低癌症死亡率。知识进步:那些进行系统审查的人应该意识到过度依赖检查表和指南的危险。系统综述的读者应该意识到,系统综述只是另一项研究,所有研究都有得出错误结论的能力。当一篇综述似乎推翻了目前的立场时,有必要重新审视初级研究的出版物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A plea for more careful scholarship in reviewing evidence: the case of mammographic screening.

Objectives: To identify issues of principle and practice giving rise to misunderstandings in reviewing evidence, to illustrate these by reference to the Nordic Cochrane Review (NCR) and its interpretation of two trials of mammographic screening, and to draw lessons for future reviewing of published results.

Methods: A narrative review of the publications of the Nordic Cochrane Review of mammographic screening (NCR), the Swedish Two-County Trial (S2C) and the Canadian National Breast Screening Study 1 and 2 (CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2).

Results: The NCR concluded that the S2C was unreliable, despite the review's complaints being shown to be mistaken, by direct reference to the original primary publications of the S2C. Repeated concerns were expressed by others about potential subversion of randomisation in CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2; however, the NCR continued to rely heavily on the results of these trials. Since 2022, however, eyewitness evidence of such subversion has been in the public domain.

Conclusions: An over-reliance on nominal satisfaction of checklists of criteria in systematic reviewing can lead to erroneous conclusions. This occurred in the case of the NCR, which concluded that mammographic screening was ineffective or minimally effective. Broader and more even-handed reviews of the evidence show that screening confers a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality.

Advances in knowledge: Those carrying out systematic reviews should be aware of the dangers of over-reliance on checklists and guidelines. Readers of systematic reviews should be aware that a systematic review is just another study, with the capability that all studies have of coming to incorrect conclusions. When a review seems to overturn the current position, it is essential to revisit the publications of the primary 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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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