背景:跨学科疼痛治疗(IPT)是一种复杂的干预措施;其结果非常多样化,处理这些结果的方法也是如此。这种多样性可能会阻碍基于证据的决策。目前,对于如何在已发表的系统评价和荟萃分析中选择报告的结局以明确证明IPT的有效性,目前尚无黄金标准推荐.
目的:在本系统概述中,我们的目标是评估已发表的系统评价和荟萃分析报告的结果领域和测量,并确定任何方法,考虑因素,以及关于处理所选结果域和度量的讨论。
方法:本文描述了关于IPT与任何对照的有效性的随机对照试验的已发表的系统评价和荟萃分析中报道的结果的系统概述方案。为此,我们搜索了PubMed,科克伦图书馆,和Epidemonikos数据库从成立到2019年12月。两名独立调查人员筛选了标题,已识别记录的摘要,以及潜在合格的系统评价和荟萃分析的全文,根据预定义的表单执行数据提取,并对纳入的系统评价和荟萃分析的质量进行评级。纳入的系统评价和荟萃分析的质量将通过AMSTAR(评估系统评价的计量工具)2进行评级。数据将通过AMSTAR2进行描述性分析和分层。
结果:我们介绍了系统概述的基本原理和设计,以总结和绘制已发表的系统综述和荟萃分析中报告的所选IPT结果域以及处理这些结果的方法。截至2019年12月,我们收集了5229篇系统评价,其中147人(2.81%)接受了深入的资格审查。预计截止结果将于2020年9月公布。
结论:这项研究的结果将在获得结果后立即公布。我们的结果将填补相关文献中的空白,并将用于为制定一套可应用于系统评价的建议提供信息,并有望作为黄金标准。
■PRR1-10.2196/17795。
BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary pain treatment (IPT) is a complex intervention; its outcomes are very diverse, as are the methodologies for handling those outcomes. This diversity may hamper evidence-based decision making. Presently, there is no gold standard recommendation of how to select reported outcomes in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses to explicitly demonstrate the effectiveness of IPT.
OBJECTIVE: In this systematic overview, we aim to evaluate the reported outcome domains and measurements across published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to identify any methods, considerations, and discussion regarding the handling of the chosen outcome domains and measurements.
METHODS: This article describes the protocol for a systematic overview of the outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized control trials for the effectiveness of IPT versus any control. To this end, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos databases from inception to December 2019. Two independent investigators screened the titles, the abstracts of the identified records, and the full texts of the potentially eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses, performed data extraction according to predefined forms, and rated the quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be rated with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. Data will be analyzed descriptively and stratified by AMSTAR 2.
RESULTS: We introduced the rationale and design of a systematic overview to summarize and map the chosen IPT outcome domains and the methods of handling these outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As of December 2019, we collected 5229 systematic reviews, of which 147 (2.81%) were examined in-depth for eligibility. Topline results are anticipated by September 2020.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will be published as soon as they are available. Our results will fill a gap in the related literature and will be used to inform the development of a set of recommendations that can be applied in systematic reviews and hopefully serve as a gold standard.
UNASSIGNED: PRR1-10.2196/17795.