Evaluation of the replicability of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the effects of health interventions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Background Systematic reviews are often characterised as being inherently replicable but several studies have challenged this claim. Objectives To investigate the variation in results following independent replication of literature searches and meta-analyses of systematic reviews. Methods We included ten systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions published in November 2020. Two information specialists repeated the original database search strategies. Two experienced review authors screened full-text articles, extracted data, and calculated the results for the first reported meta-analysis. All replicators were initially blinded to the results of the original review. A meta-analysis was considered not ‘fully replicable’ if the original and replicated summary estimate or confidence interval width differed by more than 10%, and meaningfully different if there was a difference in the direction or statistical significance. Results The difference between the number of records retrieved by the original reviewers and the information specialists exceeded 10% in 25/43 (58%) searches for the first replicator and 21/43 (49%) searches for the second. Eight meta-analyses (80%, 95% CI: 49-96%) were initially classified as not fully replicable. After screening and data discrepancies were addressed, the number of meta-analyses classified as not fully replicable decreased to five (50%, 95% CI: 24-76%). Differences were classified as meaningful in one blinded replication (10%, 95% CI: 1-40%) and none of the unblinded replications (0%, 95% CI: 0-28%). Conclusions The results of systematic review processes were not always consistent when their reported methods were repeated. However, these inconsistencies seldom affected summary estimates from meta-analyses in a meaningful way. HIGHLIGHTS What is already known on this topic Systematic reviews are often characterised as being inherently replicable, however, several studies have challenged this claim. Few studies have examined where and why inconsistencies arise, and what their impact is, when replicating multiple systematic review processes. What this study adds Replication of published systematic review processes (database searches, full-text screening, data extraction and meta-analysis) frequently produced results that were inconsistent with the original review. Following correction of replicator errors, the main drivers of variation in the results were incomplete reporting (e.g., unclear search methods, study eligibility criteria and methods for selecting study results) and reviewer data extraction errors. However, differences between the original reviewer’s and replicators’ summary estimates and confidence intervals were seldom meaningful.
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 | 0,831 | 0,945 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,020 | 0,047 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,018 | 0,019 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,012 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
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; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».