Updating Systematic Reviews: An International Survey
Updating Systematic Reviews: An International Survey
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0009914
复制
发表时间：
2010-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Moher, David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Garritty, Chantelle;Tsertsvadze, Alexander;Moher, David
背景：系统评价（SR）应该是最新的，以保持其在告知医疗保健政策和实践方面的重要性。但是，关于何时以及如何更新 SR 的指导很少。此外，委托或制定 SR 的组织的更新政策和实践尚不清楚。方法/主要发现：目标是描述赞助或开展 SR 的机构的更新实践和政策。对国际 SR 界内 195 个医疗保健组织进行了一项有目的的非随机抽样调查，该调查基于互联网。使用描述性统计分析调查结果。来自 26 个国家的完整回复率为 58% (n = 114)，其中 70% (75/107) 的参与者被确定为 SR 的生产者。在受访者中，79% (84/107) 认为更新的重要性为高或非常高，57% (60/106) 的组织报告拥有正式的更新政策。然而，只有 29% (35/106) 的组织参考了书面政策文件。一些群体 (62/105; 59%) 报告更新做法不规则，超过一半 (53/103) 的组织受访者估计他们各自的 SR 中超过 50% 可能已经过时。原始 SR 的作者 (42/106; 40%) 通常被认为有责任确保 SR 是最新的。更新的障碍包括资源限制、审稿人动机、缺乏学术信用和有限的出版格式。大多数受访者（70/100；70%）表示，他们支持跨机构或机构集中更新工作。此外，84% (83/99) 的受访者表示他们赞成开发 SR 中央登记册，类似于临床试验界的努力。 结论/意义：大多数发起和/或执行 SR 的组织认为更新很重要。尽管认识到这一点，但更新实践并不定期，并且许多组织缺乏更新 SR 的正式书面政策。这项研究标志着第一个从组织角度进行更新的基线数据。
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) should be up to date to maintain their importance in informing healthcare policy and practice. However, little guidance is available about when and how to update SRs. Moreover, the updating policies and practices of organizations that commission or produce SRs are unclear.Methodology/Principal Findings: The objective was to describe the updating practices and policies of agencies that sponsor or conduct SRs. An Internet-based survey was administered to a purposive non-random sample of 195 healthcare organizations within the international SR community. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The completed response rate was 58% (n = 114) from across 26 countries with 70% (75/107) of participants identified as producers of SRs. Among responders, 79% (84/107) characterized the importance of updating as high or very-high and 57% (60/106) of organizations reported to have a formal policy for updating. However, only 29% (35/106) of organizations made reference to a written policy document. Several groups (62/105; 59%) reported updating practices as irregular, and over half (53/103) of organizational respondents estimated that more than 50% of their respective SRs were likely out of date. Authors of the original SR (42/106; 40%) were most often deemed responsible for ensuring SRs were current. Barriers to updating included resource constraints, reviewer motivation, lack of academic credit, and limited publishing formats. Most respondents (70/100; 70%) indicated that they supported centralization of updating efforts across institutions or agencies. Furthermore, 84% (83/99) of respondents indicated they favoured the development of a central registry of SRs, analogous to efforts within the clinical trials community.Conclusions/Significance: Most organizations that sponsor and/or carry out SRs consider updating important. Despite this recognition, updating practices are not regular, and many organizations lack a formal written policy for updating SRs. This research marks the first baseline data available on updating from an organizational perspective.