.png){kind=icon}
返回
Exploring evidence selection with the inclusion network
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1162/qss_a_00287.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
分享.png){kind=icon}
收藏
摘要
En 中文
Although systematic reviews are intended to provide trusted scientific knowledge to meet the needs of decision-makers, their reliability can be threatened by bias and irreproducibility. To help decision-makers assess the risks in systematic reviews that they intend to use as the foundation of their action, we designed and tested a new approach to analyzing the evidence selection of a review: its coverage of the primary literature and its comparison to other reviews. Our approach could also help anyone using or producing reviews understand diversity or convergence in evidence selection. The basis of our approach is a new network construct called the inclusion network, which has two types of nodes: primary study reports (PSRs, the evidence) and systematic review reports (SRRs). The approach assesses risks in a given systematic review (the target SRR) by first constructing an inclusion network of the target SRR and other systematic reviews studying similar research questions (the companion SRRs) and then applying a three-step assessment process that utilizes visualizations, quantitative network metrics, and time series analysis. This paper introduces our approach and demonstrates it in two case studies. We identified the following risks: missing potentially relevant evidence, epistemic division in the scientific community, and recent instability in evidence selection standards. We also compare our inclusion network approach to knowledge assessment approaches based on another influential network construct, the claim-specific citation network, discuss current limitations of the inclusion network approach, and present directions for future work.
Keyword:
claim-specific citation networks
decision making
evidence selection discordance
evidence synthesis
Jaccard similarity
specialized-purpose citation networks
期刊
IF:
3.5
论文数:
371
被引数:
1.7K
机构
引用论文
<p align="left">A new species of Postia (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) from China based on morphological and molecular evidence.png)
Phytotaxa
PhytotaxaIF0
PREAI
分享收藏PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic ReviewsPrisma-s: 对PRISMA声明的扩展，用于报告系统综述中的文献搜索SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
OAAI
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWSIF3.9
OAAI分享收藏A systematic review and critical assessment of 11 discordant meta-analyses on reduced-function CYP2C19 genotype and risk of adverse clinical outcomes in clopidogrel usersGENETICS IN MEDICINEOAAI
GENETICS IN MEDICINEIF6.2
OAAI分享收藏Salt And Public Health: Contested Science And The Challenge Of Evidence-Based Decision MakingHEALTH AFFAIRS
HEALTH AFFAIRSIF8.1
PREAI
分享收藏
查看更多内容