Home
Giới thiệu
Tài khoản
Đăng nhập
Quên mật khẩu
Đổi mật khẩu
Đăng ký tạo tài khoản
Liệt kê
Công trình khoa học
Bài báo trong nước
Bài báo quốc tế
Sách và giáo trình
Thống kê
Công trình khoa học
Bài báo khoa học
Sách và giáo trình
Giáo sư
Phó giáo sư
Tiến sĩ
Thạc sĩ
Lĩnh vực nghiên cứu
Tìm kiếm
Cá nhân
Nội dung
Góp ý
Hiệu chỉnh lý lịch
Thông tin chung
English
Đề tài NC khoa học
Bài báo, báo cáo khoa học
Hướng dẫn Sau đại học
Sách và giáo trình
Các học phần và môn giảng dạy
Giải thưởng khoa học, Phát minh, sáng chế
Khen thưởng
Thông tin khác
Tài liệu tham khảo
Hiệu chỉnh
Số người truy cập: 106,834,761
Methodological steps used by authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study
Tác giả hoặc Nhóm tác giả:
Hoang Thi Nam Giang, Ali Mahmoud Ahmed, Peter N Lee, Kenji Hirayama, Hosni Salem, Nguyen Tien Huy
Nơi đăng:
BMC Medical Research Methodology;
S
ố:
1;
Từ->đến trang
: 164;
Năm:
2019
Lĩnh vực:
Y - Dược;
Loại:
Bài báo khoa học;
Thể loại:
Quốc tế
TÓM TẮT
BackgroundThe quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MAs) depends on the extent of the methods used. We investigated the methodological steps used by authors of SR/MAs of clinical trials via an author survey.MethodsWe conducted an email-based cross-sectional study by contacting corresponding authors of SR/MAs that were published in 2015 and 2016 and retrieved through the PubMed database. The 27-item questionnaire was developed to study the methodological steps used by authors when conducting a SR/MA and the demographic characteristics of the respondent. Besides the demographic characteristics, methodological questions regarding the source, extraction and synthesis of data were included.ResultsFrom 10,292 emails sent, 384 authors responded and were included in the final analysis. Manual searches were carried out by 69.2% of authors, while 87.3% do updated searches, 49.2% search grey literature, 74.9% use the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment, 69.8% assign more than two reviewers for data extraction, 20.5% use digital software to extract data from graphs, 57.9% use raw data in the meta-analysis, and 43.8% meta-analyze both adjusted and non-adjusted data. There was a positive correlation of years of experience in conducting of SR/MAs with both searching grey literature (
P
= 0.0003) and use of adjusted and non-adjusted data (
P
= 0.006).ConclusionsMany authors still do not carry out many of the vital methodological steps to be taken when performing any SR/MA. The experience of the authors in SR/MAs is highly correlated with use of the recommended tips for SR/MA conduct. The optimal methodological approach for researchers conducting a SR/MA should be standardized.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MAs) depends on the extent of the methods used. We investigated the methodological steps used by authors of SR/MAs of clinical trials via an author survey.MethodsWe conducted an email-based cross-sectional study by contacting corresponding authors of SR/MAs that were published in 2015 and 2016 and retrieved through the PubMed database. The 27-item questionnaire was developed to study the methodological steps used by authors when conducting a SR/MA and the demographic characteristics of the respondent. Besides the demographic characteristics, methodological questions regarding the source, extraction and synthesis of data were included.ResultsFrom 10,292 emails sent, 384 authors responded and were included in the final analysis. Manual searches were carried out by 69.2% of authors, while 87.3% do updated searches, 49.2% search grey literature, 74.9% use the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment, 69.8% assign more than two reviewers for data extraction, 20.5% use digital software to extract data from graphs, 57.9% use raw data in the meta-analysis, and 43.8% meta-analyze both adjusted and non-adjusted data. There was a positive correlation of years of experience in conducting of SR/MAs with both searching grey literature (
P
= 0.0003) and use of adjusted and non-adjusted data (
P
= 0.006).ConclusionsMany authors still do not carry out many of the vital methodological steps to be taken when performing any SR/MA. The experience of the authors in SR/MAs is highly correlated with use of the recommended tips for SR/MA conduct. The optimal methodological approach for researchers conducting a SR/MA should be standardized.
© Đại học Đà Nẵng
Địa chỉ: 41 Lê Duẩn Thành phố Đà Nẵng
Điện thoại: (84) 0236 3822 041 ; Email: dhdn@ac.udn.vn