- #RECOMMENDED CITATION FOR NCCN GUIDELINES USING ZOTERO FULL#
- #RECOMMENDED CITATION FOR NCCN GUIDELINES USING ZOTERO TRIAL#
The NCCN set of guidelines is one of many available to oncologists however, a survey of oncologists showed that NCCN guidelines were more likely to influence clinical practice than other popular oncology guidelines. 4, 7 However, only a small proportion of the systematic reviews with meta-analyses evaluated in previous investigations were for oncology interventions, leaving unanswered questions for researchers in this field, oncologists, and policy makers.įor this investigation of the reproducibility of oncology systematic reviews, we identified systematic reviews cited in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines. The first studies to holistically evaluate the reproducibility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the biomedical literature found that authors frequently fail to use reproducible research practices.
5, 6 Most efforts to reproduce research findings have been dedicated to primary studies, such as randomized clinical trials, and little effort has been dedicated to reproduce higher levels of evidence, such as systematic reviews. 4 As a result, efforts to reproduce biomedical research findings have been thwarted. 1, 2 Many of these concerns stem from research practices that lack transparency, including poor reporting of study methodology 3 and failing to make study data publicly available.
#RECOMMENDED CITATION FOR NCCN GUIDELINES USING ZOTERO FULL#
Reporting meta-analyses in forest plots and requirements for full data sharing are recommended.Ĭoncerns are growing about the reproducibility of biomedical research. Only 1 meta-analysis included a link to an online data set.Ĭonclusions and Relevance More reproducible research practices are needed in oncology meta-analyses, as suggested by those that are cited by the NCCN. Data were said to be imputed in 29 meta-analyses, but none specified which data. All meta-analytic estimates were reproducible in theory in 100 systematic reviews (64.9%), and in 15 systematic reviews (9.7%), no meta-analytic estimates could potentially be reproduced. Forest plots appear to improve the reproducibility of meta-analyses. Only 2375 of the 3696 meta-analytic estimates (64.3%), including subgroup and sensitivity analyses, were reproducible in theory. Results We identified 1124 potential systematic reviews, and 154 meta-analyses comprising 3696 meta-analytic effect size estimates were included. Main Outcomes and Measures The frequency of reproducible research practices, defined as (1) effect estimate and measure of precision (eg, hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval) (2) clear list of studies included for each analysis and (3) for subgroup and sensitivity analyses, it must be clear which studies were included in each group or level. The analysis was carried out between May 6, 2018, and January 28, 2019. All retrieved studies were screened, and data were extracted, independently and in duplicate. We scanned the reference list of all NCCN guidelines (n = 49) for potential systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
#RECOMMENDED CITATION FOR NCCN GUIDELINES USING ZOTERO TRIAL#
Objective To evaluate the reproducibility in theory of meta-analyses in oncology systematic reviews cited by the 49 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for the treatment of cancer by site and evaluate whether Cochrane reviews or systematic reviews that report adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines use more reproducible research practices.ĭesign, Setting, and Participants A cross-sectional investigation of all systematic reviews with at least 1 meta-analysis and at least 1 included randomized clinical trial (RCT) that are cited by NCCN guidelines for treatment of cancer by site.
In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, reproducible research practices ensure that summary effects used to guide patient care are stable and trustworthy. Importance Reproducible research practices are essential to biomedical research because these practices promote trustworthy evidence. Shared Decision Making and Communication.Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine.Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment.Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience.Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography.
0 kommentar(er)
