2009 Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group
2009 Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/brs.0b013e3181b1c99f
复制
发表时间：
2009-08-15
期刊：
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
van Tulder, Maurits
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Furlan, Andrea D.;Pennick, Victoria;van Tulder, Maurits
研究设计.颈背痛治疗试验系统评价方法指南。帮助综述作者设计、实施和报告该领域试验的系统综述。背景资料概要。1997年，科克伦回顾小组发布了系统评价方法指南，并于2003年进行了更新。从那时起，新的方法学证据出现了，标准也发生了变化。再加上即将对科克伦协作网所要求的软件和方法进行修订，很明显需要对现有指南进行修订。方法.科克伦回顾组编辑和咨询委员会于2006年6月开会，审查相关的新方法学证据，并确定如何将其纳入。在讨论的基础上，对准则进行了修订，并分发征求意见。随着新的科克伦干预措施系统评价手册的章节可用，对指南的一致性进行了检查。在The科克伦图书馆2008年第3期的结果中，向综述作者提供了一份工作草案。最终建议分为7类：目的、文献检索、纳入标准、偏倚风险评估、数据提取、数据分析和更新综述。每项建议分为最低标准（强制性）和进一步指导（可选）。本次更新没有推荐证据等级，而是采用GRADE方法来确定各项研究中重要的以患者为中心的结局的证据的总体质量，并包括一个关于更新综述的新章节。在已发表的科学文章中引用了以前版本的方法指南（1997年：254篇引文; 2003年：209篇引文，2009年2月10日检索），表明其他人可能会发现这些指南有助于计划、实施或评价脊柱疾病领域的系统评价。
Study Design. Method guidelines for systematic reviews of trials of treatments for neck and back pain.Objective. To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field.Summary of Background Data. In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group publishedMethod Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003. Since then, new methodologic evidence has emerged and standards have changed. Coupled with the upcoming revisions to the software and methods required by The Cochrane Collaboration, it was clear that revisions were needed to the existing guidelines. Methods. The Cochrane Back Review Group editorial and advisory boards met in June 2006 to review the relevant new methodologic evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Based on the discussion, the guidelines were revised and circulated for comment. As sections of the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were made available, the guidelines were checked for consistency. A working draft was made available to review authors in The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3.Results. The final recommendations are divided into 7 categories: objectives, literature search, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and updating your review. Each recommendation is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). Instead of recommending Levels of Evidence, this update adopts the GRADE approach to determine the overall quality of the evidence for important patient-centered outcomes across studies and includes a new section on updating reviews.Conclusion. Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in published scientific articles (1997: 254 citations; 2003: 209 citations, searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of spinal disorders.