社论：在《高级护理杂志》上发表文献综述的下一代方向

ying on experience or tradition. In addition to intervention reviews, other types of reviews including diagnostic test accuracy and prognosis reviews are now published.

When the Cochrane Collaboration was established in 1993, methods for doing other forms of literature reviews, for example of qualitative studies, were also under development but were in their infancy. For example, Noblit and Hare published their text for the synthesis of qualitative studies in 1988. This early method for synthesizing qualitative methods was followed by other approaches, for example Walsh and Downe in 2005 and Thomas and Harden in 2008. At around this time, Whittemore and Knalf published their well-known approach to the synthesis of different types of research and non-research papers, using an integrative review (Whittemore Simon Knafl, 2005). These published approaches to doing a literature review reflect just a few methods that are ailable for those doing a literature review, which has a broader scope that identifying effective treatments or interventions.

The benefit of developing methods for doing a literature review for questions that fall outside the remit of the traditional systematic review is widely acknowledged as this brings rigour to a method that was previously undefined and often categorized, somewhat vaguely as a ‘narrative review’ (Greenhalgh, 2014). However it is also well documented that methods for doing a review he proliferated in recent times (Aveyard Simon Bradbury-Jones, 2019; Booth et al., 2012). There are many different names of reviews—Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones identified in excess of 35 different names used in published papers to describe a review—though it is not clear how different these methods really are in practice. Furthermore, stated methods for doing a review are not always adhered to in published literature reviews (Aveyard Simon Bradbury-Jones, 2019), and reviews are sometimes given alternative names that do not seem to correspond to an existing method (Aveyard Simon Bradbury-Jones, 2019). In addition, the term ‘systematic’ is often applied to a review name, presumably to indicate rigour, which can lead to confusion as it is not yet clear whether the term ‘systematic’ is one that is (or should be) synonymous with a literature review with meta-ysis or whether it should be used as an umbrella term to describe any review which has been undertaken in a systematic way. There is currently no clear consensus on this—there is also no right or wrong—but the inconsistent use of the term in different contexts is potentially confusing for readers who might wonder how a ‘systematic integrative review’ differs from an ‘integrative review.’

Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) called for clarity and consolidation in the methods used by researchers when doing a literature review. It was felt that the many different names and approaches to doing a review is potentially confusing for both readers and authors of reviews. This is especially so when a review was given a new name which did not seem to correspond to an existing approach and where the methods used were not clearly described. Adherence to a published method for doing a literature review was advocated to ensure that authors build on and consolidate existing methods rather than develop further approaches which might further complicate the field. Detailed adherence was also recommended to ensure that those doing a review attend to each aspect of the review and provide detail to demonstrate rigour. Yet in making such recommendations, we also need to be mindful of the need to be responsive to new methods for doing a literature review, where these are justified and which should not be precluded by rigid adherence to pre-specified methods.

The use of publishing guidelines raises important questions. Currently on the EQUATOR -network website (), there is reference to publishing guidelines which authors are generally required to adhere to prior to publication. These include the updated PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021) for systematic reviews with meta-ysis and mixed methods review and the ENTREQ guidelines (Tong et al., 2012) for qualitative reviews. However due to the many different types of literature reviews, there is not an associated publishing guideline for every type of literature review. Therefore, it is not currently possible to require that all those doing a literature review adhere to an existing publication guideline as this risks the shoehorning some methods inappropriately into guidelines that may not be applicable. Both authors and editors need to be mindful of this. Therefore, the universal recourse to a publishing guideline is not necessarily a practical option. Whether existing guidelines, which are specific to certain review types, could be broadened to encompass a wider range of review types is a topic currently under discussion (Aveyard et al., 2021).

Despite the proliferation of names for doing a literature review, there are many common features of a review. All reviews he a focused research question with clear inclusion criteria and advocate a planned search strategy to demonstrate that the most relevant papers are included. Many reviews recommend a process of data extraction and critical appraisal to ensure the relevant aspects and relative merits of each paper are considered. All types of review require an appropriate level of synthesis so that new findings come from the review; often these findings should reflect a new interpretation of the papers which would not be evident from the reading each paper individually and should oid simple lists of findings (Thorn, 2017). It is at the point of synthesis that a clear divergence between different types of reviews can often be found. Those doing a systematic review with meta-ysis will undertake a numerical re-ysis of the statistics in the included papers and where this is possible, the results will be presented as a meta-ysis though it should be noted that this is not always possible. Those doing an ysis involving the interpretation of the findings of different papers will present their results narratively.

At the Journal of Advanced Nursing, we are committed to the publication of well-conducted literature reviews. We welcome reviews that adhere to an established published method which is clearly referenced rather than review types where the method is unclear. Where there is the need for a new type of review, this should be clearly indicated in the paper and an explicit deion of the method should be given. All reviewers should provide a clear and transparent account of the method used to do their review and any deviation from the published method should be explained. This should include a search strategy following clearly stated inclusion criteria, methods for data extraction and critical appraisal of the included papers. The approach to data ysis should be fully explained and should be in accordance with the method used to guide the review. We expect adherence to publication guidelines where this is appropriate and will happily discuss with authors where this is not the case. We also welcome contributions that develop the discussion surrounding doing a literature review and the complexities therein. We recognize that this is a complex area and it is one that with our authors, editors and readers we look forward to engaging with in further debate so that we move the science of doing a literature review forward.

下卷翻译（仅供参照）

近年来，古籍生物学研究课题已成为一种更加加关键的生物学研究并未必，因为给予与特定主题无关的所有生物学研究的先导需求变得更加加关键。其诱因已得不到很好的刻画；外科医生和医疗保健工程技术工作人员缺少生物学研究来给予循证保健。在许多课题，虽然不是全部，但我们很好不容易拥有大量可以为实践中给予信息的证据。长久以来，人们普遍相信无聊的行业阅读与其实践中无关的每篇学术研究是实际上的；事实上，有些人试图计算这必需多长时间，并断言这样的任务与日常工作不相容（Fraser Simon Dunstan, 2010）。此外，任何一篇学术研究都只给予了一个拼图，关键的是要看得见生物学研究的而今，而不是显然缺少一张。这就是为什么透过良好的古籍生物学研究课题对于开发计划基于证据的保健方法有如此关键的诱因。

透过古籍生物学研究课题有任何不尽相同的方法有。最商业化的方法有之一是由 Cochrane Collaboration 开发计划的系统设计赞赏和云集归纳的原始方法有（Higgins et al., 2022）。他们透过系统设计回顾和云集归纳的方法有被广泛拒绝接受为对探求“什么有效？”的生物学研究透过回顾的金子基准，即确切干预或用药 A 确实比不上干预或用药 B。作为这些生物学研究课题情况的中长期，这些 Cochrane Collaboration 生物学研究课题主要举例来说随机对照试制。Cochrane Collaboration 生物学研究课题未必被誉为最近最伟大的发明之一，因为它们总结了有关保健治疗或干预有效性的证据，使我们能够根据生物学知识证据的总结给予最佳保健，而不是依赖生物学知识或传统。除了干预甄别外，现在还发布了其他并未必的甄别，之外治疗检验准确性和预后甄别。

当 Cochrane Collaboration 于 1993 年创设时，透过其他形式的古籍生物学研究课题的方法有，例如认定生物学研究，也正要开发计划中的，但还处于起步收尾。例如，Noblit 和 Hare 在1988 年登载了他们的认定生物学研究先导句法。这种用作先导认定方法有的更加早方法有被其他方法有运用于，例如 2005 年的 Walsh 和 Downe 以及2008 年的 Thomas 和 Harden 。差不多在这个时候，Whittemore 和 Knaf 登载了他们著名的方法有来先导不尽相同并未必的生物学研究和非生物学研究学术论文，常用先导纽约时报 (Whittemore Simon Knafl, 2005）。这些已登载的古籍生物学研究课题方法有仅总结了可供古籍生物学研究课题者常用的几种方法有，其仅限于更加广，可以确切有效的治疗或干预预防措施。

开发计划方法有对传统系统设计赞赏仅限于外的情况透过古籍生物学研究课题的好处已得不到广泛采纳，因为这为现在常量且经常归类的方法有带来了严格性，有点模糊地称为“述说性生物学研究课题”（Greenhalgh , 2014 年）。然而，也有据可查的是，最近透过甄别的方法有暴增（Aveyard Simon Bradbury-Jones, 2019 ; Booth et al., 2012）。纽约时报有许多不尽相同的命名——Aveyard 和 Bradbury-Jones 在已登载的学术论文中的确切了超过 35 个不尽相同的命名来刻画纽约时报——尽管迄今尚为不正确这些方法有在实践中中的的实际差异有多大。此外，已登载的古籍生物学研究课题（Aveyard Simon Bradbury-Jones, 2019）并未必心里遵循所述的生物学研究课题方法有，并且有时就会给生物学研究课题区分开也许与整体方法有不对不该的替代命名（Aveyard Simon Bradbury-Jones , 2019）。此外，“系统设计性”一词未必用作纽约时报命名，大概是为了表示明晰，这也许就会加剧混淆，因为尚为不正确“系统设计性”一词确实是（或不该该）与古籍生物学研究课题和云集归纳，或者它确实不该该作为一个概括性术语来刻画任何以系统设计方式透过的生物学研究课题。迄今不能接受没有人恰当的共识——也没有人人有之分——但该术语在不尽相同上下文中的的不原则上常用也许就会让观看者无法忍受疑惑，他们也许想知道“系统设计先导赞赏”与“先导赞赏”有何不尽相同。

Aveyard 和 Bradbury-Jones（2019 年）) 敦促生物学研究工作人员在透过古籍生物学研究课题时常用的方法有要清晰和统一。人们相信，透过纽约时报的许多不尽相同命名和方法有也许就会使纽约时报的观看者和所作无法忍受疑惑。当纽约时报被区分开一个也许与整体方法有不对不该的从新命名并且所常用的方法有没有人恰当刻画时，尤其如此。倡导者无视已登载的古籍生物学研究课题方法有，以确保所作创建和壮大整体方法有，而不是开发计划也许使该课题先取一步复杂化的先取一步方法有。还建议详细遵从，以确保透过审核的工作人员举办审核的上都并给予指明以断言其明晰性。然而在提出这样的建议时，

撰写Guide的常用提出了关键的情况。迄今在 EQUATOR -network 网站 ( ) 上，有对撰写Guide的参照，所作未必在撰写前必须遵从这些Guide。其中的之外更加从一新 PRISMA Guide (Page et al., 2021 )，用作通过云集归纳和混合方法有透过系统设计赞赏，以及 ENTREQ Guide (Tong et al., 2012 )) 透过认定甄别。然而，由于古籍生物学研究课题的并未必很多，因此并没有人针对每种古籍生物学研究课题的无关撰写Guide。因此，迄今不也许敦促所有透过古籍生物学研究课题的人都遵从整体的撰写Guide，因为这有也许将某些方法有不合理地硬塞先取也许不受限制的Guide中的。所作和主笔都必需提醒这一点。因此，普遍求助于撰写Guide未必是一种实用的选择。确实可以扩展特定于某些甄别并未必的整体Guide以举例来说更加广泛的甄别并未必是当前正要提问的主题（Aveyard 等人， 2021 年）。

尽管透过古籍生物学研究课题的命名暴增，但生物学研究课题有许多合作特征。所有纽约时报都有一个具有恰当划入基准的中长期生物学研究情况，并倡导者有计划的战略以断言举例来说最无关的学术论文。许多纽约时报自荐了数据分离出和前瞻性审核的反复，以确保慎重考虑每篇学术论文的无关方面和相对优点。所有并未必的甄别都必需合理的先导水平，以便从甄别中的消除从一新发掘出；未必，这些发掘出不该该总结对学术论文的从新表述，这在实际上阅读每篇学术论文时并未必显着，并且不该该避免直观的发掘出列表（Thorn， 2017）。正是在先导点上，未必可以发掘出不尽相同并未必的纽约时报间不存在显着的差异。那些通过云集归纳透过系统设计甄别的人将对所举例来说学术论文中的的统计数据透过个数再次归纳，并且在也许的才会，结果将作为云集归纳显现出，尽管不该该提醒这并未必心里也许的. 那些透过涉及表述不尽相同学术论文结果的归纳的人将述说他们的结果。

在高级保健刊物，我们致力于撰写透过良好的古籍生物学研究课题。我们欢迎遵循恰当重述的既定已发布方法有的纽约时报，而不是方法有不恰当的纽约时报并未必。如果必需从一新甄别并未必，不该在学术论文中的恰当指出，并恰当所述方法有。所有和内容可人都不该正确、透明地所述和内容可方法有，并不该表述与已发布方法有的任何偏差。这不该之外遵循恰当规定的划入基准、数据分离出方法有和对划入学术论文的前瞻性审核的战略。不该充分表述数据归纳的方法有，并不该与用作指导甄别的方法有原则上。我们渴望在合理的才会遵从撰写Guide，并在不适合的才会很情愿与所作提问。我们也欢迎环绕着古籍生物学研究课题及其复杂性展开提问的表彰。我们了解到这是一个复杂的课题，我们欣慰与我们的所作、主笔和观看者一起参与先取一步的辩论，以便我们推展古籍生物学研究课题生物学朝著持续发展。

原文链接：

THE

END

本文转载自其他网站，不推选健康界观点和立场。如有内容可和图表的著作权异议，请设法联系我们（信箱：guikequan@hmkx.cn）

。

大连妇科医院哪里好
青岛哪家医院专业做人流
湛江看妇科去哪个医院好
南昌包皮过长治疗哪家好
西安男科检查哪些项目
英太青对痛风有用吗
佐米曲普坦片有什么作用
痛风快速止痛的方法
脸色黄怎么调理
脸黄气色差是什么原因怎么调理