Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly popular to a wide range of stakeholders.We set out to capture a representative cross-sectional sample of published SRs and examine them in terms of a broad range of epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics, including emerging aspects not previously examined.Methods and findings: We searched Medline for SRs indexed during November 2004 and written in English.Citations were screened and those meeting our inclusion criteria were retained.Data were collected using a 51-item data collection form designed to assess the epidemiological and reporting details and the bias-related aspects of the reviews.The data were analyzed descriptively.In total 300 SRs were identified, suggesting a current annual publication rate of about 2500, involving more than 33 700 separate studies, including one-third of a million participants.The majority (272 (90.7%)) of SRs were reported in specialty journals.Most reviews (213 (71.0%)) were categorized as therapeutic and included a median of 16 studies involving 1112 participants.Funding sources were not reported in more than onethird (122 (40.7%)) of the reviews.Reviews typically searched a median of three electronic databases and two other sources, although only about two-thirds (208 (69.3%)) of them reported the years searched.Most (197/295 (66.8%)) reviews reported information about quality assessment, while few (68/294 (23.1%)) reported assessing for publication bias.A little over half (161/300 (53.7%)) of the SRs reported combining their results statistically, of which most (147/161 (91.3%)) assessed for consistency across studies.Few (53 (17.7%))SRs reported being updates of previously completed reviews.No review had a registration number.Only half (150 (50.0%)) of the reviews used the term "systematic review" or "meta-analysis" in the title or abstract.There were large differences between Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews in the quality of reporting several characteristics.Conclusions: SRs are now produced in large numbers, and our data suggest that the quality of their reporting is inconsistent.This situation might be improved if more widely agreed upon evidence-based reporting guidelines were endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals.These results substantiate the view that readers should not accept SRs uncritically.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,253 | 0,131 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».