Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: what about in 2011? The next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age

被引:13
作者
Fortes Villas Boas, Paulo Jose [1 ]
Spagnuolo, Regina Stella [1 ]
Kamegasawa, Amelia [1 ]
Braz, Leandro Gobbo [1 ]
do Valle, Adriana Polachini [1 ]
Jorge, Eliane Chaves [1 ]
Bok Yoo, Hugo Hyung [1 ]
Maria Cataneo, Antonio Jose [1 ]
Correa, Ione [1 ]
Fukushima, Fernanda Bono [1 ]
do Nascimento, Paulo, Jr. [1 ]
Pinheiro Modolo, Norma Sueli [1 ]
Teixeira, Marise Silva [1 ]
de Oliveira Vidal, Edison Iglesias [1 ]
Daher, Solange Ramires [1 ]
El Dib, Regina [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] UNESP Univ Estadual Paulista, Botucatu Med Sch FMB, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[2] McMaster Univ, McMaster Inst Urol, Hamilton, ON, Canada
关键词
clinical medicine; clinical trials; Cochrane reviews; evidence-based medicine; limitations; meta-analysis; research; review literature;
D O I
10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01877.x
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Rationale and aim The aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up-to-date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased. Methods Across-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted. We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups. Results We analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 45.30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.04% recommended no further research. In total, 45.04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.8% did not recommend further studies and 44.24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.59%. Conclusion Only a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the 'insufficient evidence' scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher-quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context.
引用
收藏
页码:633 / 637
页数:5
相关论文
共 7 条
[1]  
Cochrane A.L., 1979, Medicines for the Year 2000, P1
[2]   Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions [J].
Cook, DJ ;
Mulrow, CD ;
Haynes, RB .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 126 (05) :376-380
[3]   Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures [J].
Egger, M ;
Smith, GD ;
Phillips, AN .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 315 (7121) :1533-1537
[4]  
El Dib R. P., 2012, CURSO EDUCACAO DISTA, P1
[5]   Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care [J].
El Dib, Regina P. ;
Atallah, Alvaro N. ;
Andriolo, Regis B. .
JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2007, 13 (04) :689-692
[6]   Systematic reviews: Critical links in the great chain of evidence [J].
Mulrow, CD ;
Cook, DJ ;
Davidoff, F .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 126 (05) :389-391
[7]  
Sharar E., 2007, J EVAL CLIN PRACT, V13, P693