首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Epidemiology >Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor.
【24h】

Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor.

机译:系统的审稿人通常会与研究作者联系,但严格程度有限。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES: Author contact can enhance the quality of systematic reviews. We conducted a systematic review of the practice of author contact in recently published systematic reviews to characterize its prevalence, quality, and results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eligible studies were systematic reviews of efficacy published in 2005-2006 in the 25 journals with the highest impact factor publishing systematic reviews in clinical medicine and the Cochrane Library, identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Two researchers determined whether and why reviewers contacted authors. To assess the accuracy of the abstracted data, we surveyed reviewers by e-mail. RESULTS: Forty-six (50%) of the 93 eligible systematic reviews published in top journals and 46 (85%) of the 54 eligible Cochrane reviews reported contacting authors of eligible studies. Requests were made most commonly for missing information: 40 (76%) clinical medicine reviews and 45 (98%) Cochrane reviews. One hundred and nine of 147 (74%) reviewers responded to the survey, and reported a higher rate of author contact than apparent from the published record. CONCLUSION: Although common, author contact is not a universal feature of systematic reviews published in top journals and the Cochrane Library. The conduct and reporting of author contact purpose, procedures, and results require improvement.
机译:目的:作者联系可以提高系统评价的质量。我们在最近发表的系统评价中对作者联系的做法进行了系统评价,以描述其普遍性,质量和结果。研究设计与设置:符合条件的研究是对疗效的系统评价,在2005-2006年期间发表在影响因子最高的25种期刊上,它们在临床医学和Cochrane库中发表了系统评价,并通过搜索MEDLINE,EMBASE和Cochrane库进行了鉴定。两名研究人员确定了审稿人是否以及为什么与作者联系。为了评估抽象数据的准确性,我们通过电子邮件对审阅者进行了调查。结果:在顶级期刊上发表的93篇合格的系统评价中,有46篇(50%)和在54篇合格的Cochrane评论中有46篇(85%)报告了与合格研究的作者联系。缺少信息的请求最常见:40(76%)临床医学评论和45(98%)Cochrane评论。 147位评论者中有109位(74%)回答了该调查,并报告作者与作者的联系比例比从已发表的记录中得出的更高。结论:作者联系虽然很普遍,但并不是在顶级期刊和Cochrane图书馆中发表的系统评价的普遍特征。作者联系目的,程序和结果的进行和报告需要改进。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号