The paths and recommendations for different evidence synthesis methods selection_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

WANG Wenya ¹ , JING Chengyang ¹ , SHI Lanjun ¹ , LI Yajing ¹ ,  HU Jing ² ,  LIAO Xing ¹

1. Center for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, P. R. China;
2. Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Capital Medical University/Beijing Institute of Chinese Medicine/Beijing Evidence based Chinese Medicine Center, Beijing 100010, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

HU Jing, Email: hujingebm@163.com; LIAO Xing, Email: okfrom2008@hotmail.com

Keywords：

Evidence synthesis; Methodology; Review typology; Selection path

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202406128

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Evidence synthesis is the use of standardized, clear and rigorous methods to bring together and merge existing research data, knowledge and information, focusing on specific research questions, in order to provide a basis for relevant medical and health decision-making. At present, there are many types of evidence synthesis methods, the number of related applied research has proliferated, however, it is easy to confuse between different methods, which leads to problems such as misuse and abuse. The choice of inappropriate synthesis method will reduce the credibility and applicability of evidence. Clarifying the path and link of the selection of evidence synthesis methods will play a positive role in promoting the standardization of evidence-based evaluation. Thus, this paper briefly describes the development and classification of evidence synthesis methods, and reviews 18 representative evidence synthesis methods and its application examples in the medical field including systematic review. It also introduces the “Right Review”, an evidence synthesis method selection tool that has been developed and put into use in recent years, and clarifies the limitations of the current selection tools and methods. At the same time, referring to existing tools, theories, and models, the selection path for different evidence synthesis methods and the decision process of evidence synthesis are proposed. To provide reference for researchers to choose the evidence synthesis method reasonably.

1.	Gough D, Davies P, Jamtvedt G, et al. Evidence Synthesis International (ESI): Position Statement. Syst Rev, 2020, 9(1): 155.
2.	No authors listed. The value of evidence synthesis. Nat Hum Behav, 2021, 5(5): 539.
3.	Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J, 2009, 26(2): 91-108.
4.	Munn Z, Pollock D, Barker TH, et al. The Pandora's Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2023, 28(3): 148-150.
5.	Clarke M. History of evidence synthesis to assess treatment effects: Personal reflections on something that is very much alive. J R Soc Med, 2016, 109(4): 154-163.
6.	Bartholomew M. James Lind's Treatise of the Scurvy (1753). Postgrad Med J, 2002, 78(925): 695-696.
7.	Clarke M. History of evidence synthesis to assess treatment effects: personal reflections on something that is very much alive. J R Soc Med, 2016, 109(4): 154-163.
8.	李幼平, 刘雪梅. 系统评价的起源、发展和作用. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(1): 2-6.
9.	Best L, Stevens A, Jones DC. Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: the development and evaluation process in the South and West region of England. J Clin Effectiveness, 1997, 2(2): 51-56.
10.	Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2008, 24(2): 133-139.
11.	Adams C, Dooley G, Jefferson T, et al. Overviews - the way forward for the collaboration? Cape Town, South Africa: The 8th Annual Cochrane Colloquium, 2000.
12.	Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol, 2005, 8(1): 19-32.
13.	Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med, 2014, 11(2): e1001603.
14.	李文强, 廖星, 曾琳, 等. 混合方法研究系统综述的报告规范解读. 中华医学杂志, 2024, 104(21): 1911-1917.
15.	Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 138: 1-11.
16.	Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Br J Surg, 2000, 87(11): 1448-1454.
17.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
18.	MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, 等. 系统综述和荟萃分析优先报告的条目: PRISMA声明. 中西医结合学报, 2009, 7(9): 889-896.
19.	闫行敏, 刘天怡, 彭晓霞. 国内外生物医学期刊采用医学研究报告规范的现状与问题. 中国全科医学, 2017, 20(36): 4598-4602.
20.	Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71.
21.	Zhao B, Hu K, Zeng X, et al. Development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of animal experiments in the field of traditional Chinese medicine. J Evid Based Med, 2022, 15(2): 152-167.
22.	Akl EA, Khabsa J, Iannizzi C, et al. Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation. BMJ, 2024, 387: e079183.
23.	Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 10.
24.	Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles. BMJ. 1994, 309(6955): 648-651.
25.	Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med, 1987, 316(8): 450-455.
26.	Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008.
27.	Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci, 2010, 5: 69.
28.	Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018, 169(7): 467-473.
29.	王浙, 吴才志, 赖鸿皓, 等. 证据合成领域下的综述类型. 医学新知, 2024, 34(2): 191-205.
30.	Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 2004, 328(7454): 1490.
31.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, 等. GRADE: 证据质量和推荐强度分级的共识. 中国循证医学杂志, 2009, 9(1): 8-11.
32.	孙鑫, 李玲, 李舍予, 等. 促进高质量临床实践指南快速制订与有效使用: MAGIC体系与中国行动. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(01): 2-6.
33.	Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, et al. Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature, 2018, 558(7710): 361-364.
34.	A guide to evidence synthesis: Cornell University library evidence. 2024.
35.	Subbiah V. The next generation of evidence-based medicine. Nat Med, 2023, 29(1): 49-58.
36.	Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, et al. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J, 2019, 36(3): 202-222.
37.	苏仁凤, 玉炫, 史乾灵, 等. 证据合成方法学: 现状与发展. 协和医学杂志, 2023, 14(6): 1301-1309.
38.	Higgins JPT, Chandler J, Cumpston M, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.4. 2023.
39.	Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 129: 74-85.
40.	李艳飞, 李秀霞, 李睿, 等. 证据图谱的制作与报告. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(9): 1098-1103.
41.	Campbell F, Tricco AC, Munn Z, et al. Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "big picture" review family. Syst Rev, 2023, 12(1): 45.
42.	詹思延. 如何做一个好的系统综述和Meta分析. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2010, 42(6): 644-647.
43.	曾宪涛, 曹世义, 孙凤, 等. Meta分析系列之六: 间接比较及网状分析. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2012, 4(5): 399-402.
44.	Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: part 2. Value Health, 2011, 14(4): 429-437.
45.	丁传琦, 金静芬, 朱俊红, 等. 元民族志研究方法及报告标准. 护理学杂志, 2021, 36(11): 90-93,101.
46.	Noblit GW, Hare RD. Chapter 5: meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Counterpoints, 1999, 44: 93-123.
47.	Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2009, 9: 59.
48.	Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al. Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy, 2005, (Suppl 1): 21-34.
49.	Bowen GA. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int J Qual Methods. 2008;5(3): 12-23.
50.	Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, et al. Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches. J Clin Epidemiol, 2018, 99: 41-52.
51.	Riazi K, Azhari H, Charette JH, et al. The prevalence and incidence of NAFLD worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2022, 7(9): 851-861.
52.	Zhang J, Zhang Z, Huang S, et al. Acupuncture for cancer-related insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phytomedicine, 2022, 102: 154160.
53.	Lasa JS, Olivera PA, Danese S, et al. Efficacy and safety of biologics and small molecule drugs for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2022, 7(2): 161-170.
54.	Truong LK, Mosewich AD, Holt CJ, et al. Psychological, social and contextual factors across recovery stages following a sport-related knee injury: a scoping review. Br J Sports Med, 2020, 54(19): 1149-1156.
55.	戴泽琦, 吴雪, 张乐, 等. 耳鼻喉科口服中成药临床证据的概况性综述. 中国实验方剂学杂志, 2022, 28(20): 170-177.
56.	Poland GA, Kennedy RB, Tosh PK. Prevention of monkeypox with vaccines: a rapid review. Lancet Infect Dis, 2022, 22(12): e349-e358.
57.	Wang Y, Greenhalgh T, Wardle J, et al. Chinese herbal medicine ("3 medicines and 3 formulations") for COVID-19: rapid systematic review and meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract, 2022, 28(1): 13-32.
58.	Gao Y, Li Z, Wang Y, et al. Analysis of clinical evidence on traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy: a comprehensive review with evidence mapping. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2024, 15: 1324782.
59.	Karlsson M, Bergenheim A, Larsson MEH, et al. Effects of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 2020, 9(1): 182.
60.	Michelen M, Manoharan L, Elkheir N, et al. Characterising long COVID: a living systematic review. BMJ Glob Health, 2021, 6(9): e005427.
61.	Moffat KR, Shi W, Cannon P, et al. Factors associated with recruitment to randomised controlled trials in general practice: a systematic mixed studies review. Trials, 2023, 24(1): 90.
62.	Luiking ML, Heckemann B, Ali P, et al. Migrants' healthcare experience: a meta-ethnography review of the literature. J Nurs Scholarsh, 2019, 51(1): 58-67.
63.	McHugh TF, Deal CJ, Blye CJ, et al. A meta-study of qualitative research examining sport and recreation experiences of Indigenous youth. Qual Health Res, 2019, 29(1): 42-54.
64.	Taqueti VR, Di Carli MF. Coronary microvascular disease pathogenic mechanisms and therapeutic options: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2018, 72(21): 2625-2641.
65.	Rew L, Young CC, Monge M, et al. Review: puberty blockers for transgender and gender diverse youth-a critical review of the literature. Child Adolesc Ment Health, 2021, 26(1): 3-14.
66.	Ellis R, Williams K, Brown A, et al. A realist review of health passports for Autistic adults. PLoS One, 2023, 18(9): e0279214.
67.	Andrews H, Tierney S, Seers K. Needing permission: the experience of self-care and self-compassion in nursing: a constructivist grounded theory study. Int J Nurs Stud, 2020, 101: 103436.
68.	Carton AM, Cordwell J, Steinhardt K. A framework synthesis reviewing the impact of neonatal care unit admission on early caregiver-infant relationships. J Adv Nurs, 2020, 76(12): 3258-3272.
69.	Reid C, Seymour J, Jones C. A thematic synthesis of the experiences of adults living with hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2016, 11(7): 1206-1218.
70.	Aragon AA, Schoenfeld BJ. Does timing matter. A narrative review of intermittent fasting variants and their effects on bodyweight and body composition. Nutrients, 2022, 14(23): 5022.
71.	Jordan Z, Lockwood C, Munn Z, et al. Redeveloping the JBI model of evidence based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2018, 16(4): 227-241.
72.	Jordan Z, Lockwood C, Munn Z, et al. The updated Joanna Briggs Institute model of evidence-based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2019, 17(1): 58-71.
73.	周英凤, 胡雁, 朱政, 等. JBI循证卫生保健模式的更新及发展. 护理学杂志, 2017, 32(3): 81-83.
74.	田金徽. 证据生态系统中证据合成与转化研究方法进展与挑战. 中国药物评价, 2022, 39(1): 1-10.
75.	Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Noyes J, et al. Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. J Clin Epidemiol, 2013, 66(11): 1230-1243.
76.	Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J Plan Educ Res. 2019, 39(1): 93-112.
77.	Amog K, Pham B, Courvoisier M, et al. The web-based "Right Review" tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 knowledge synthesis methods. J Clin Epidemiol, 2022, 147: 42-51.
78.	Pandor A, Kaltenthaler E, Martyn-St James M, et al. Delphi consensus reached to produce a decision tool for selecting approaches for rapid reviews (STARR). J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 114: 22-29.
79.	Pullin A, Frampton G, Jongman R, et al. Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodivers Conserv. 2016, 25(7): 1285-1300.
80.	Cook CN, Nichols SJ, Webb JA, et al. Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: a guide for decision makers and scientists. Biol Conserv. 2017, 213(Pt A): 135-145.
81.	Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, et al. What kind of systematic review should I conduct. A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018, 18(1): 5.
82.	Tobias DK, Papatheodorou S, Yamamoto JM, et al. A primer on systematic review and meta-analysis in diabetes research. Diabetes Care, 2023, 46(11): 1882-1893.
83.	尹新乐, 张环宇, 赵娟, 等. 基于扎根理论的防御性医疗影响因素及作用机制分析. 中国医院管理, 2024, 44(7): 6-10,15.
84.	徐思敏, 戴泽琦, 曹俊岭, 等. 国内外医疗机构药物遴选和评价现状的概况性综述. 中国实验方剂学杂志, 2024, 30(7): 154-162.
85.	吴福霞, 李艳飞, 郑忠礼, 等. 抑郁症患者运动干预的证据图谱. 中国康复理论与实践, 2021, 27(12): 1412-1421.
86.	Pimsen A, Lin WH, Lin CY, et al. Healthcare providers' experiences in providing sexual health care to breast cancer survivors: a mixed-methods systematic review. J Clin Nurs, 2024, 33(3): 797-816.
87.	Barlattani T, D'Amelio C, Capelli F, et al. Suicide and COVID-19: a rapid scoping review. Ann Gen Psychiatry, 2023, 22(1): 10.
88.	Moreno-Calvete MC, Ballesteros-Rodriguez FJ. Non-pharmacological strategies for self-directed and interpersonal violence in people with severe mental illness: a rapid overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open, 2021, 11(1): e043576.
89.	Ferguson T, Olds T, Curtis R, et al. Effectiveness of wearable activity trackers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet Digit Health, 2022, 4(8): e615-e626.
90.	Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, et al. Systematic review or scoping review. Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018, 18(1): 143.
91.	李苗苗, 赵晖, 吴雪, 等. 口服中成药治疗成人功能性消化不良说明书信息及临床研究证据的概况性综述. 世界科学技术-中医药现代化, 2023, 25(8): 2840-2850.
92.	景城阳, 冯琳, 李嘉琛, 等. 中医临床预测模型研究方法学质量的系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2024, 24(3): 312-321.
93.	Pollard TM, Guell C, Morris S. Communal therapeutic mobility in group walking: a meta-ethnography. Soc Sci Med, 2020, 262: 113241.
94.	田晨, 晏毅龙, 王勇, 等. 证据智能合成与分级: AutoMeta平台开发与验证. 中国循证医学杂志, 2024, 24(4): 459-465.
95.	Khalil H, Pollock D, McInerney P, et al. Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews. Res Synth Methods, 2024, 15(6): 839-850.

1. Gough D, Davies P, Jamtvedt G, et al. Evidence Synthesis International (ESI): Position Statement. Syst Rev, 2020, 9(1): 155.
2. No authors listed. The value of evidence synthesis. Nat Hum Behav, 2021, 5(5): 539.
3. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J, 2009, 26(2): 91-108.
4. Munn Z, Pollock D, Barker TH, et al. The Pandora's Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2023, 28(3): 148-150.
5. Clarke M. History of evidence synthesis to assess treatment effects: Personal reflections on something that is very much alive. J R Soc Med, 2016, 109(4): 154-163.
6. Bartholomew M. James Lind's Treatise of the Scurvy (1753). Postgrad Med J, 2002, 78(925): 695-696.
7. Clarke M. History of evidence synthesis to assess treatment effects: personal reflections on something that is very much alive. J R Soc Med, 2016, 109(4): 154-163.
8. 李幼平, 刘雪梅. 系统评价的起源、发展和作用. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(1): 2-6.
9. Best L, Stevens A, Jones DC. Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: the development and evaluation process in the South and West region of England. J Clin Effectiveness, 1997, 2(2): 51-56.
10. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2008, 24(2): 133-139.
11. Adams C, Dooley G, Jefferson T, et al. Overviews - the way forward for the collaboration? Cape Town, South Africa: The 8th Annual Cochrane Colloquium, 2000.
12. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol, 2005, 8(1): 19-32.
13. Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med, 2014, 11(2): e1001603.
14. 李文强, 廖星, 曾琳, 等. 混合方法研究系统综述的报告规范解读. 中华医学杂志, 2024, 104(21): 1911-1917.
15. Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 138: 1-11.
16. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Br J Surg, 2000, 87(11): 1448-1454.
17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
18. MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, 等. 系统综述和荟萃分析优先报告的条目: PRISMA声明. 中西医结合学报, 2009, 7(9): 889-896.
19. 闫行敏, 刘天怡, 彭晓霞. 国内外生物医学期刊采用医学研究报告规范的现状与问题. 中国全科医学, 2017, 20(36): 4598-4602.
20. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71.
21. Zhao B, Hu K, Zeng X, et al. Development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of animal experiments in the field of traditional Chinese medicine. J Evid Based Med, 2022, 15(2): 152-167.
22. Akl EA, Khabsa J, Iannizzi C, et al. Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation. BMJ, 2024, 387: e079183.
23. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 10.
24. Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles. BMJ. 1994, 309(6955): 648-651.
25. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med, 1987, 316(8): 450-455.
26. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008.
27. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci, 2010, 5: 69.
28. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018, 169(7): 467-473.
29. 王浙, 吴才志, 赖鸿皓, 等. 证据合成领域下的综述类型. 医学新知, 2024, 34(2): 191-205.
30. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 2004, 328(7454): 1490.
31. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, 等. GRADE: 证据质量和推荐强度分级的共识. 中国循证医学杂志, 2009, 9(1): 8-11.
32. 孙鑫, 李玲, 李舍予, 等. 促进高质量临床实践指南快速制订与有效使用: MAGIC体系与中国行动. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(01): 2-6.
33. Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, et al. Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature, 2018, 558(7710): 361-364.
34. A guide to evidence synthesis: Cornell University library evidence. 2024.
35. Subbiah V. The next generation of evidence-based medicine. Nat Med, 2023, 29(1): 49-58.
36. Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, et al. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J, 2019, 36(3): 202-222.
37. 苏仁凤, 玉炫, 史乾灵, 等. 证据合成方法学: 现状与发展. 协和医学杂志, 2023, 14(6): 1301-1309.
38. Higgins JPT, Chandler J, Cumpston M, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.4. 2023.
39. Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 129: 74-85.
40. 李艳飞, 李秀霞, 李睿, 等. 证据图谱的制作与报告. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(9): 1098-1103.
41. Campbell F, Tricco AC, Munn Z, et al. Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "big picture" review family. Syst Rev, 2023, 12(1): 45.
42. 詹思延. 如何做一个好的系统综述和Meta分析. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2010, 42(6): 644-647.
43. 曾宪涛, 曹世义, 孙凤, 等. Meta分析系列之六: 间接比较及网状分析. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2012, 4(5): 399-402.
44. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: part 2. Value Health, 2011, 14(4): 429-437.
45. 丁传琦, 金静芬, 朱俊红, 等. 元民族志研究方法及报告标准. 护理学杂志, 2021, 36(11): 90-93,101.
46. Noblit GW, Hare RD. Chapter 5: meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Counterpoints, 1999, 44: 93-123.
47. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2009, 9: 59.
48. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al. Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy, 2005, (Suppl 1): 21-34.
49. Bowen GA. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int J Qual Methods. 2008;5(3): 12-23.
50. Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, et al. Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches. J Clin Epidemiol, 2018, 99: 41-52.
51. Riazi K, Azhari H, Charette JH, et al. The prevalence and incidence of NAFLD worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2022, 7(9): 851-861.
52. Zhang J, Zhang Z, Huang S, et al. Acupuncture for cancer-related insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phytomedicine, 2022, 102: 154160.
53. Lasa JS, Olivera PA, Danese S, et al. Efficacy and safety of biologics and small molecule drugs for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2022, 7(2): 161-170.
54. Truong LK, Mosewich AD, Holt CJ, et al. Psychological, social and contextual factors across recovery stages following a sport-related knee injury: a scoping review. Br J Sports Med, 2020, 54(19): 1149-1156.
55. 戴泽琦, 吴雪, 张乐, 等. 耳鼻喉科口服中成药临床证据的概况性综述. 中国实验方剂学杂志, 2022, 28(20): 170-177.
56. Poland GA, Kennedy RB, Tosh PK. Prevention of monkeypox with vaccines: a rapid review. Lancet Infect Dis, 2022, 22(12): e349-e358.
57. Wang Y, Greenhalgh T, Wardle J, et al. Chinese herbal medicine ("3 medicines and 3 formulations") for COVID-19: rapid systematic review and meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract, 2022, 28(1): 13-32.
58. Gao Y, Li Z, Wang Y, et al. Analysis of clinical evidence on traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy: a comprehensive review with evidence mapping. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2024, 15: 1324782.
59. Karlsson M, Bergenheim A, Larsson MEH, et al. Effects of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 2020, 9(1): 182.
60. Michelen M, Manoharan L, Elkheir N, et al. Characterising long COVID: a living systematic review. BMJ Glob Health, 2021, 6(9): e005427.
61. Moffat KR, Shi W, Cannon P, et al. Factors associated with recruitment to randomised controlled trials in general practice: a systematic mixed studies review. Trials, 2023, 24(1): 90.
62. Luiking ML, Heckemann B, Ali P, et al. Migrants' healthcare experience: a meta-ethnography review of the literature. J Nurs Scholarsh, 2019, 51(1): 58-67.
63. McHugh TF, Deal CJ, Blye CJ, et al. A meta-study of qualitative research examining sport and recreation experiences of Indigenous youth. Qual Health Res, 2019, 29(1): 42-54.
64. Taqueti VR, Di Carli MF. Coronary microvascular disease pathogenic mechanisms and therapeutic options: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2018, 72(21): 2625-2641.
65. Rew L, Young CC, Monge M, et al. Review: puberty blockers for transgender and gender diverse youth-a critical review of the literature. Child Adolesc Ment Health, 2021, 26(1): 3-14.
66. Ellis R, Williams K, Brown A, et al. A realist review of health passports for Autistic adults. PLoS One, 2023, 18(9): e0279214.
67. Andrews H, Tierney S, Seers K. Needing permission: the experience of self-care and self-compassion in nursing: a constructivist grounded theory study. Int J Nurs Stud, 2020, 101: 103436.
68. Carton AM, Cordwell J, Steinhardt K. A framework synthesis reviewing the impact of neonatal care unit admission on early caregiver-infant relationships. J Adv Nurs, 2020, 76(12): 3258-3272.
69. Reid C, Seymour J, Jones C. A thematic synthesis of the experiences of adults living with hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2016, 11(7): 1206-1218.
70. Aragon AA, Schoenfeld BJ. Does timing matter. A narrative review of intermittent fasting variants and their effects on bodyweight and body composition. Nutrients, 2022, 14(23): 5022.
71. Jordan Z, Lockwood C, Munn Z, et al. Redeveloping the JBI model of evidence based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2018, 16(4): 227-241.
72. Jordan Z, Lockwood C, Munn Z, et al. The updated Joanna Briggs Institute model of evidence-based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2019, 17(1): 58-71.
73. 周英凤, 胡雁, 朱政, 等. JBI循证卫生保健模式的更新及发展. 护理学杂志, 2017, 32(3): 81-83.
74. 田金徽. 证据生态系统中证据合成与转化研究方法进展与挑战. 中国药物评价, 2022, 39(1): 1-10.
75. Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Noyes J, et al. Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. J Clin Epidemiol, 2013, 66(11): 1230-1243.
76. Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J Plan Educ Res. 2019, 39(1): 93-112.
77. Amog K, Pham B, Courvoisier M, et al. The web-based "Right Review" tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 knowledge synthesis methods. J Clin Epidemiol, 2022, 147: 42-51.
78. Pandor A, Kaltenthaler E, Martyn-St James M, et al. Delphi consensus reached to produce a decision tool for selecting approaches for rapid reviews (STARR). J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 114: 22-29.
79. Pullin A, Frampton G, Jongman R, et al. Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodivers Conserv. 2016, 25(7): 1285-1300.
80. Cook CN, Nichols SJ, Webb JA, et al. Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: a guide for decision makers and scientists. Biol Conserv. 2017, 213(Pt A): 135-145.
81. Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, et al. What kind of systematic review should I conduct. A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018, 18(1): 5.
82. Tobias DK, Papatheodorou S, Yamamoto JM, et al. A primer on systematic review and meta-analysis in diabetes research. Diabetes Care, 2023, 46(11): 1882-1893.
83. 尹新乐, 张环宇, 赵娟, 等. 基于扎根理论的防御性医疗影响因素及作用机制分析. 中国医院管理, 2024, 44(7): 6-10,15.
84. 徐思敏, 戴泽琦, 曹俊岭, 等. 国内外医疗机构药物遴选和评价现状的概况性综述. 中国实验方剂学杂志, 2024, 30(7): 154-162.
85. 吴福霞, 李艳飞, 郑忠礼, 等. 抑郁症患者运动干预的证据图谱. 中国康复理论与实践, 2021, 27(12): 1412-1421.
86. Pimsen A, Lin WH, Lin CY, et al. Healthcare providers' experiences in providing sexual health care to breast cancer survivors: a mixed-methods systematic review. J Clin Nurs, 2024, 33(3): 797-816.
87. Barlattani T, D'Amelio C, Capelli F, et al. Suicide and COVID-19: a rapid scoping review. Ann Gen Psychiatry, 2023, 22(1): 10.
88. Moreno-Calvete MC, Ballesteros-Rodriguez FJ. Non-pharmacological strategies for self-directed and interpersonal violence in people with severe mental illness: a rapid overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open, 2021, 11(1): e043576.
89. Ferguson T, Olds T, Curtis R, et al. Effectiveness of wearable activity trackers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet Digit Health, 2022, 4(8): e615-e626.
90. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, et al. Systematic review or scoping review. Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018, 18(1): 143.
91. 李苗苗, 赵晖, 吴雪, 等. 口服中成药治疗成人功能性消化不良说明书信息及临床研究证据的概况性综述. 世界科学技术-中医药现代化, 2023, 25(8): 2840-2850.
92. 景城阳, 冯琳, 李嘉琛, 等. 中医临床预测模型研究方法学质量的系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2024, 24(3): 312-321.
93. Pollard TM, Guell C, Morris S. Communal therapeutic mobility in group walking: a meta-ethnography. Soc Sci Med, 2020, 262: 113241.
94. 田晨, 晏毅龙, 王勇, 等. 证据智能合成与分级: AutoMeta平台开发与验证. 中国循证医学杂志, 2024, 24(4): 459-465.
95. Khalil H, Pollock D, McInerney P, et al. Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews. Res Synth Methods, 2024, 15(6): 839-850.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Latest ArticlesThe paths and recommendations for different evidence synthesis methods selection

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Format

Content