Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review

被引：0

作者：

Hans Lund

Karen A. Robinson

Ane Gjerland

Hanna Nykvist

Thea Marie Drachen

Robin Christensen

Carsten Bogh Juhl

Gro Jamtvedt

Monica Nortvedt

Merete Bjerrum

Matt Westmore

Jennifer Yost

Klara Brunnhuber

机构：

[1] Western Norway University of Applied Sciences,Section Evidence

[2] Johns Hopkins University,Based Practice, Department for Health and Function

[3] University Library of Southern Denmark,Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine

[4] Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital,Research and Analysis Department

[5] Odense University Hospital,Section for Biostatistics and Evidence

[6] University of Southern Denmark,Based Research, the Parker Institute

[7] Herlev and Gentofte Hospital,Research Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark

[8] Faculty of Health Sciences,Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics

[9] OsloMet,Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy

[10] Western Norway University of Applied Sciences,Faculty of Health and Social Science

[11] Aarhus University,Research Unit of Nursing and healthcare, Institute of Public Health, Health

[12] Aalborg University,The Centre of Clinical Guidelines, Department of Clinical Medicine

[13] The University of Adelaide,The Danish Centre of Systematic Reviews

[14] Health Research Authority, A JBI Centre of Excellence

[15] NHS,M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing

[16] Villanova University,undefined

[17] Clinical Solutions,undefined

[18] Elsevier Ltd.,undefined

来源：

Systematic Reviews | / 11卷

关键词：

Evidence-based research; Scoping review; Meta-research; Research on research; Systematicity; Transparency;

D O I：

暂无

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

引用

共 93 条

[1] Robinson KA(2021)Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 1: What Evidence-Based Research is and why is it important? J Clin Epidemiol 129 151-157
[2] Brunnhuber K(1998)Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents? JAMA. 280 280-282
[3] Ciliska D(1996)Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement JAMA 276 637-639
[4] Juhl CB(2002)A brief history of research synthesis Eval Health Prof 25 12-37
[5] Christensen R(1992)Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction N Engl J Med 327 248-254
[6] Lund H(1992)A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction JAMA 268 240-248
[7] Clarke M(2017)Why do authors derive new cardiovascular clinical prediction rules in the presence of existing rules? A mixed methods study PLoS One 12 1698-1704
[8] Chalmers I(2013)Twenty-year perspective of randomized controlled trials for surgery of chronic nonspecific low back pain: citation bias and tangential knowledge Spine J 13 295-299
[9] Begg C(2014)The use of systematic reviews in clinical trials and narrative reviews in dermatology: is the best evidence being used? Actas Dermosifiliogr 105 8-55
[10] Cho M(2016)Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer BMC Med 14 581-104