跳到主要內容
Systematic Review 冒險

參考文獻

共 254 筆，依關卡分組（每筆放在最主要的關卡，其他引用到它的關卡列在條目下方）。 每筆書目都以 PubMed、Crossref、arXiv 或 GitHub 實際查證過；標「AI 章 [N]」者為第 12 關內文的引用編號。 各章節內文另附該章使用的文獻連結。

LV.01 為什麼要做 Systematic Review （34 筆）

→ 前往第 1 關

  1. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994.
    PubMed 8086953 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597
  2. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005.
    DOI 10.1080/1364557032000119616
  3. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007.
    PubMed 17388659 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 ｜也見於 LV.03 LV.11 LV.12
  4. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007.
    PubMed 17638714 ｜ DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179
  5. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009.
    PubMed 19525005 ｜ DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60329-9 ｜也見於 LV.12
  6. Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2009.
    PubMed 19654195 ｜ DOI 10.1503/cmaj.081086
  7. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?. PLoS Med. 2010.
    PubMed 20877712 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326
  8. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ. 2013.
    PubMed 23873947 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.f4501 ｜也見於 LV.12
  9. Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med. 2014.
    PubMed 24558353 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603 ｜AI 章 [22] ｜也見於 LV.12
  10. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014.
    PubMed 24411643 ｜ DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62329-6 ｜也見於 LV.12
  11. Pieper D, Antoine SL, Mathes T et al. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014.
    PubMed 24581293 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007 ｜也見於 LV.11
  12. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM et al. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015.
    PubMed 26360830 ｜ DOI 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000055
  13. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015.
    PubMed 26377409 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 ｜也見於 LV.06
  14. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R et al. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016.
    PubMed 27884208 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7
  15. Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016.
    PubMed 27797786 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.i5440 ｜也見於 LV.12
  16. Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M et al. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016.
    PubMed 27339128 ｜ DOI 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401
  17. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med. 2016.
    PubMed 27218655 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
  18. Elliott JH, Synnot A, Turner T et al. Living systematic review: 1. Introduction-the why, what, when, and how. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017.
    PubMed 28912002 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010 ｜AI 章 [23] ｜也見於 LV.12
  19. Sadeghirad B, Siemieniuk RAC, Brignardello-Petersen R et al. Corticosteroids for treatment of sore throat: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2017.
    PubMed 28931508 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.j3887 ｜也見於 LV.02 LV.03 LV.04 LV.05 LV.10
  20. Simmonds M, Salanti G, McKenzie J et al. Living systematic reviews: 3. Statistical methods for updating meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017.
    PubMed 28912004 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.008 ｜也見於 LV.09
  21. Thomas J, Noel-Storr A, Marshall I et al. Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017.
    PubMed 28912003 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011 ｜AI 章 [24] ｜也見於 LV.12
  22. Fusar-Poli P, Radua J. Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evid Based Ment Health. 2018.
    PubMed 30006442 ｜ DOI 10.1136/ebmental-2018-300014
  23. 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.
    PubMed 30453902 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
  24. 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.
    PubMed 29316881 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 ｜也見於 LV.02
  25. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018.
    PubMed 30178033 ｜ DOI 10.7326/m18-0850 ｜也見於 LV.11
  26. Lasserson TJ, Thomas J, Higgins JPT. Chapter 1: Starting a review. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (v6). 2019.
    DOI 10.1002/9781119536604.ch1
  27. Niforatos JD, Weaver M, Johansen ME. Assessment of Publication Trends of Systematic Reviews and Randomized Clinical Trials, 1995 to 2017. JAMA Intern Med. 2019.
    PubMed 31355871 ｜ DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3013 ｜也見於 LV.12
  28. Gartlehner G, Affengruber L, Titscher V et al. Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020.
    PubMed 31972274 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.005 ｜AI 章 [10] ｜也見於 LV.06 LV.12
  29. Nussbaumer-Streit B, Klerings I, Dobrescu AI et al. Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020.
    PubMed 31698064 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.011 ｜也見於 LV.04
  30. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020.
    PubMed 33038124 ｜ DOI 10.11124/jbies-20-00167
  31. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021.
    PubMed 33068715 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007 ｜也見於 LV.04
  32. 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.
    PubMed 33038541 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041
  33. 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.
    PubMed 34091022 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.022 ｜也見於 LV.12
  34. Tricco AC, Khalil H, Holly C et al. Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statement. JBI Evid Synth. 2022.
    PubMed 35124684 ｜ DOI 10.11124/jbies-21-00371

LV.02 問題形成：PICO 與 eligibility （7 筆）

→ 前往第 2 關

  1. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995.
    PubMed 7582737 ｜ DOI 10.7326/acpjc-1995-123-3-a12
  2. Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T et al. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007.
    PubMed 17573961 ｜ DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-7-16
  3. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012.
    PubMed 22829486 ｜ DOI 10.1177/1049732312452938
  4. Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C et al. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014.
    PubMed 25413154 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0
  5. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE et al. Chapter 3: Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (v6). 2019.
    DOI 10.1002/9781119536604.ch3
  6. Frandsen TF, Bruun Nielsen MF, Lindhardt CL et al. Using the full PICO model as a search tool for systematic reviews resulted in lower recall for some PICO elements. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020.
    PubMed 32679315 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.005 ｜也見於 LV.04
  7. Al Atbi AY, Al Khalasi U, Al Atbi A et al. Efficacy of nebulized glucocorticoids for acute pharyngitis in an emergency department outpatient population: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. CJEM. 2025.
    PubMed 40272745 ｜ DOI 10.1007/s43678-025-00906-5

LV.03 Protocol 與註冊 （13 筆）

→ 前往第 3 關

  1. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA. 2002.
    PubMed 12038926 ｜ DOI 10.1001/jama.287.21.2831
  2. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004.
    PubMed 15161896 ｜ DOI 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457 ｜也見於 LV.07 LV.08
  3. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008.
    PubMed 18769481 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081 ｜也見於 LV.08
  4. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010.
    PubMed 20156912 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.c365 ｜也見於 LV.07 LV.08
  5. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D et al. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet. 2011.
    PubMed 20630580 ｜ DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60903-8
  6. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev. 2012.
    PubMed 22588008 ｜ DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-1-7
  7. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G et al. PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Syst Rev. 2013.
    PubMed 23320413 ｜ DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-4
  8. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One. 2013.
    PubMed 23861749 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0066844 ｜也見於 LV.08
  9. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015.
    PubMed 25554246 ｜ DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
  10. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015.
    PubMed 25555855 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.g7647
  11. Allers K, Hoffmann F, Mathes T et al. Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018.
    PubMed 29258907 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.005
  12. Ge L, Tian JH, Li YN et al. Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018.
    PubMed 29111471 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.012
  13. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev. 2018.
    PubMed 29463298 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0699-4

LV.04 搜尋策略 （32 筆）

→ 前往第 4 關

  1. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994.
    PubMed 7718048 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.309.6964.1286
  2. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P et al. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet. 2000.
    PubMed 11072941 ｜ DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02786-0
  3. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000.
    PubMed 11004423 ｜ DOI 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00188-8
  4. Robinson KA, Dickersin K. Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int J Epidemiol. 2002.
    PubMed 11914311 ｜ DOI 10.1093/ije/31.1.150
  5. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003.
    PubMed 12583822 ｜ DOI 10.3310/hta7010
  6. Royle P, Milne R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003.
    PubMed 15095765 ｜ DOI 10.1017/s0266462303000552
  7. Stevinson C, Lawlor DA. Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns?. Complement Ther Med. 2004.
    PubMed 15649836 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.ctim.2004.09.003
  8. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL et al. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005.
    PubMed 15894554 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.38446.498542.8f
  9. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN et al. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006.
    PubMed 16636704
  10. Sampson M, McGowan J. Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006.
    PubMed 16980145 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.007
  11. Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M et al. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007.
    PubMed 17443631 ｜ DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000010.pub3
  12. Golder S, Loke Y, McIntosh HM. Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008.
    PubMed 18394536 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005
  13. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ et al. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009.
    PubMed 19160345 ｜ DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000006.pub3
  14. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009.
    PubMed 19230612 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012
  15. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010.
    PubMed 20181324 ｜ DOI 10.3310/hta14080
  16. Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012.
    PubMed 22559755 ｜ DOI 10.1017/s0266462312000086
  17. Wieseler B, Kerekes MF, Vervoelgyi V et al. Impact of document type on reporting quality of clinical drug trials: a comparison of registry reports, clinical study reports, and journal publications. BMJ. 2012.
    PubMed 22214759 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.d8141
  18. Glanville JM, Duffy S, McCool R et al. Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches?. J Med Libr Assoc. 2014.
    PubMed 25031558 ｜ DOI 10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.007
  19. Schmucker C, Schell LK, Portalupi S et al. Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS One. 2014.
    PubMed 25536072 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0114023
  20. Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One. 2015.
    PubMed 25938454 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0125931
  21. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC et al. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015.
    PubMed 25766056 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
  22. Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M et al. Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017.
    PubMed 28420349 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0347-z
  23. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML et al. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018.
    PubMed 30271302 ｜ DOI 10.5195/jmla.2018.283
  24. Knelangen M, Hausner E, Metzendorf MI et al. Trial registry searches for randomized controlled trials of new drugs required registry-specific adaptation to achieve adequate sensitivity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018.
    PubMed 29132833 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.003
  25. Scherer RW, Meerpohl JJ, Pfeifer N et al. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018.
    PubMed 30480762 ｜ DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000005.pub4
  26. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (v6). 2019.
    DOI 10.1002/9781119536604.ch4 ｜也見於 LV.01 LV.05 LV.06
  27. Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R. Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019.
    PubMed 31019390 ｜ DOI 10.5195/jmla.2019.567
  28. de Cassan S, Thompson MJ, Perera R et al. Corticosteroids as standalone or add-on treatment for sore throat. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020.
    PubMed 32356360 ｜ DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008268.pub3 ｜也見於 LV.01 LV.02 LV.10
  29. Gusenbauer M, Haddaway NR. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Synth Methods. 2020.
    PubMed 31614060 ｜ DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1378
  30. Noel-Storr AH, Dooley G, Wisniewski S et al. Cochrane Centralised Search Service showed high sensitivity identifying randomized controlled trials: A retrospective analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020.
    PubMed 32798713 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.008
  31. Thomas J, McDonald S, Noel-Storr A et al. Machine learning reduced workload with minimal risk of missing studies: development and evaluation of a randomized controlled trial classifier for Cochrane Reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021.
    PubMed 33171275 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.003 ｜AI 章 [14] ｜也見於 LV.12
  32. Ewald H, Klerings I, Wagner G et al. Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022.
    PubMed 35654269 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.022

LV.05 文獻管理與去重 （13 筆）

→ 前往第 5 關

  1. Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA et al. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ. 1997.
    PubMed 9310564 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.635 ｜也見於 LV.07
  2. von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B et al. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA. 2004.
    PubMed 14982913 ｜ DOI 10.1001/jama.291.8.974 ｜也見於 LV.07
  3. Cook J, Hayward G, Thompson M et al. Oral corticosteroid use for clinical and cost-effective symptom relief of sore throat: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014.
    PubMed 25238785 ｜ DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-365
  4. Kwon Y, Lemieux M, McTavish J et al. Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015.
    PubMed 26512216 ｜ DOI 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.004
  5. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T et al. Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module. Syst Rev. 2015.
    PubMed 25588387 ｜ DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-4-6
  6. Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB et al. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016.
    PubMed 27366130 ｜ DOI 10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014
  7. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z et al. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016.
    PubMed 27919275 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
  8. Hansen B. Dexamethasone May Reduce Sore Throat Symptoms in Adults at 48 Hours. Am Fam Physician. 2017.
    PubMed 28925675
  9. Van der Mierden S, Tsaioun K, Bleich A et al. Software tools for literature screening in systematic reviews in biomedical research. ALTEX. 2019.
    PubMed 31113000 ｜ DOI 10.14573/altex.1902131
  10. Clark J, Glasziou P, Del Mar C et al. A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020.
    PubMed 32004673 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008 ｜也見於 LV.12
  11. Harrison H, Griffin SJ, Kuhn I et al. Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020.
    PubMed 31931747 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s12874-020-0897-3
  12. McKeown S, Mir ZM. Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references. Syst Rev. 2021.
    PubMed 33485394 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-021-01583-y
  13. Borissov N, Haas Q, Minder B et al. Reducing systematic review burden using Deduklick: a novel, automated, reliable, and explainable deduplication algorithm to foster medical research. Syst Rev. 2022.
    PubMed 35978441 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-022-02045-9

LV.06 篩選：從標題到全文 （16 筆）

→ 前往第 6 關

  1. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960.
    DOI 10.1177/001316446002000104
  2. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977.
    PubMed 843571 ｜KappaCalculator：Landis & Koch 分級
  3. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990.
    PubMed 2348207 ｜ DOI 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-l
  4. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993.
    PubMed 8501467 ｜ DOI 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-v
  5. Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C et al. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med. 2002.
    PubMed 12111924 ｜ DOI 10.1002/sim.1190
  6. Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005.
    PubMed 15733050
  7. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012.
    PubMed 23092060 ｜KappaCalculator：較嚴格的 κ 解讀
  8. O'Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J et al. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015.
    PubMed 25588314 ｜ DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-4-5 ｜AI 章 [13] ｜也見於 LV.12
  9. Shemilt I, Khan N, Park S et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the efficiency of study identification methods in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016.
    PubMed 27535658 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0315-4 ｜也見於 LV.12
  10. Bannach-Brown A, Przybyła P, Thomas J et al. Machine learning algorithms for systematic review: reducing workload in a preclinical review of animal studies and reducing human screening error. Syst Rev. 2019.
    PubMed 30646959 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-019-0942-7 ｜也見於 LV.12
  11. Marshall IJ, Wallace BC. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Syst Rev. 2019.
    PubMed 31296265 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9 ｜也見於 LV.12
  12. Stoll CRT, Izadi S, Fowler S et al. The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2019.
    PubMed 31272125 ｜ DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1369
  13. Wang Z, Nayfeh T, Tetzlaff J et al. Error rates of human reviewers during abstract screening in systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2020.
    PubMed 31935267 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0227742 ｜AI 章 [12] ｜也見於 LV.12
  14. Nussbaumer-Streit B, Ellen M, Klerings I et al. Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021.
    PubMed 34091021 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019 ｜也見於 LV.07 LV.12
  15. van de Schoot R, de Bruin J, Schram R et al. An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nat Mach Intell. 2021.
    DOI 10.1038/s42256-020-00287-7 ｜也見於 LV.12
  16. Hanegraaf P, Wondimu A, Mosselman JJ et al. Inter-reviewer reliability of human literature reviewing and implications for the introduction of machine-assisted systematic reviews: a mixed-methods review. BMJ Open. 2024.
    PubMed 38508610 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076912 ｜也見於 LV.12

LV.07 資料萃取 （23 筆）

→ 前往第 7 關

  1. O'Brien JF, Meade JL, Falk JL. Dexamethasone as adjuvant therapy for severe acute pharyngitis. Ann Emerg Med. 1993.
    PubMed 8427434 ｜ DOI 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)80205-7
  2. Marvez-Valls EG, Ernst AA, Gray J et al. The role of betamethasone in the treatment of acute exudative pharyngitis. Acad Emerg Med. 1998.
    PubMed 9660281 ｜ DOI 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1998.tb02462.x
  3. Wei JL, Kasperbauer JL, Weaver AL et al. Efficacy of single-dose dexamethasone as adjuvant therapy for acute pharyngitis. Laryngoscope. 2002.
    PubMed 11802044 ｜ DOI 10.1097/00005537-200201000-00016
  4. Bulloch B, Kabani A, Tenenbein M. Oral dexamethasone for the treatment of pain in children with acute pharyngitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2003.
    PubMed 12712025 ｜ DOI 10.1067/mem.2003.136
  5. Jones AP, Remmington T, Williamson PR et al. High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005.
    PubMed 15939227 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.11.024
  6. Kiderman A, Yaphe J, Bregman J et al. Adjuvant prednisone therapy in pharyngitis: a randomised controlled trial from general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2005.
    PubMed 15808038
  7. Olympia RP, Khine H, Avner JR. Effectiveness of oral dexamethasone in the treatment of moderate to severe pharyngitis in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005.
    PubMed 15753273 ｜ DOI 10.1001/archpedi.159.3.278
  8. Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B et al. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006.
    PubMed 16765272 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.010
  9. Niland ML, Bonsu BK, Nuss KE et al. A pilot study of 1 versus 3 days of dexamethasone as add-on therapy in children with streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006.
    PubMed 16732143 ｜ DOI 10.1097/01.inf.0000219469.95772.3f
  10. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Maric K et al. Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences. JAMA. 2007.
    PubMed 17652297 ｜ DOI 10.1001/jama.298.4.430 ｜也見於 LV.09
  11. Tasar A, Yanturali S, Topacoglu H et al. Clinical efficacy of dexamethasone for acute exudative pharyngitis. J Emerg Med. 2008.
    PubMed 18468831 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.11.029
  12. Elamin MB, Flynn DN, Bassler D et al. Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009.
    PubMed 19348977 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.016
  13. Tendal B, Higgins JP, Jüni P et al. Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study. BMJ. 2009.
    PubMed 19679616 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.b3128 ｜也見於 LV.09
  14. Young T, Hopewell S. Methods for obtaining unpublished data. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011.
    PubMed 22071866 ｜ DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000027.pub2
  15. Li T, Vedula SS, Hadar N et al. Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2015.
    PubMed 25686168 ｜ DOI 10.7326/m14-1603
  16. Hayward GN, Hay AD, Moore MV et al. Effect of Oral Dexamethasone Without Immediate Antibiotics vs Placebo on Acute Sore Throat in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017.
    PubMed 28418482 ｜ DOI 10.1001/jama.2017.3417
  17. Mathes T, Klaßen P, Pieper D. Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017.
    PubMed 29179685 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0431-4
  18. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T et al. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017.
    PubMed 28529187 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.007 ｜也見於 LV.09
  19. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N et al. Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017.
    PubMed 28842290 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.07.014 ｜也見於 LV.09
  20. Higgins JP, Eldridge S, Li T. Including variants on randomized trials. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2019.
    DOI 10.1002/9781119536604.ch23
  21. Li T, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Chapter 5: Collecting data. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (v6). 2019.
    DOI 10.1002/9781119536604.ch5 ｜也見於 LV.05
  22. Saldanha IJ, Smith BT, Ntzani E et al. The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR): descriptive characteristics of publicly available data and opportunities for research. Syst Rev. 2019.
    PubMed 31862012 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-019-1250-y
  23. Xu C, Yu T, Furuya-Kanamori L et al. Validity of data extraction in evidence synthesis practice of adverse events: reproducibility study. BMJ. 2022.
    PubMed 35537752 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj-2021-069155

LV.08 Risk of Bias 評估 （33 筆）

→ 前往第 8 關

  1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ et al. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995.
    PubMed 7823387 ｜ DOI 10.1001/jama.273.5.408
  2. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet. 1998.
    PubMed 9746022 ｜ DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01085-x
  3. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999.
    PubMed 10493204 ｜ DOI 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054
  4. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol. 2007.
    PubMed 17470488 ｜ DOI 10.1093/ije/dym018
  5. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008.
    PubMed 18316340 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.ad
  6. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010.
    PubMed 20652370 ｜ DOI 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
  7. Dechartres A, Boutron I, Trinquart L et al. Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: evidence from a meta-epidemiologic study. Ann Intern Med. 2011.
    PubMed 21727292 ｜ DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-155-1-201107050-00006
  8. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011.
    PubMed 22008217 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.d5928
  9. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011.
    PubMed 22007046 ｜ DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
  10. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA et al. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012.
    PubMed 20698919 ｜ DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x
  11. Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012.
    PubMed 22945832 ｜ DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-157-6-201209180-00537
  12. Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A et al. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013.
    PubMed 22981249 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.07.005
  13. Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL et al. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013.
    PubMed 23420236 ｜ DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009
  14. Margulis AV, Pladevall M, Riera-Guardia N et al. Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank. Clin Epidemiol. 2014.
    PubMed 25336990 ｜ DOI 10.2147/clep.s66677
  15. Jørgensen L, Paludan-Müller AS, Laursen DR et al. Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev. 2016.
    PubMed 27160280 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0259-8
  16. Page MJ, Higgins JP, Clayton G et al. Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies. PLoS One. 2016.
    PubMed 27398997 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0159267
  17. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016.
    PubMed 27733354 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.i4919
  18. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016.
    PubMed 26092286 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005 ｜也見於 LV.11
  19. Savovic J, Turner RM, Mawdsley D et al. Association Between Risk-of-Bias Assessments and Results of Randomized Trials in Cochrane Reviews: The ROBES Meta-Epidemiologic Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2018.
    PubMed 29126260 ｜ DOI 10.1093/aje/kwx344
  20. Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ et al. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (v6). 2019.
    DOI 10.1002/9781119536604.ch8
  21. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019.
    PubMed 31462531 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.l4898
  22. Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD et al. PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019.
    PubMed 30596875 ｜ DOI 10.7326/m18-1376
  23. Minozzi S, Cinquini M, Gianola S et al. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) showed low interrater reliability and challenges in its application. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020.
    PubMed 32562833 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.015
  24. McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods. 2021.
    PubMed 32336025 ｜ DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1411
  25. Yang B, Mallett S, Takwoingi Y et al. QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Ann Intern Med. 2021.
    PubMed 34698503 ｜ DOI 10.7326/m21-2234
  26. Minozzi S, Dwan K, Borrelli F et al. Reliability of the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2) improved with the use of implementation instruction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022.
    PubMed 34537386 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.09.021
  27. Page MJ, Sterne JAC, Boutron I et al. ROB-ME: a tool for assessing risk of bias due to missing evidence in systematic reviews with meta-analysis. BMJ. 2023.
    PubMed 37984978 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj-2023-076754
  28. Higgins JPT, Morgan RL, Rooney AA et al. A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E). Environ Int. 2024.
    PubMed 38555664 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108602
  29. Lai H, Ge L, Sun M et al. Assessing the Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials With Large Language Models. JAMA Netw Open. 2024.
    PubMed 38776081 ｜ DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.12687
  30. Eisele-Metzger A, Lieberum JL, Toews M et al. Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2. Res Synth Methods. 2025.
    PubMed 41626932 ｜ DOI 10.1017/rsm.2025.12
  31. Huang J, Lai H, Zhao W et al. Large Language Model–Assisted Risk-of-Bias Assessment in Randomized Controlled Trials Using the Revised Risk-of-Bias Tool: Evaluation Study. J Med Internet Res. 2025.
    PubMed 40554779 ｜ DOI 10.2196/70450
  32. Rose CJ, Bidonde J, Ringsten M et al. Using a Large Language Model (ChatGPT-4o) to Assess the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Medical Interventions: Interrater Agreement With Human Reviewers. Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2025.
    PubMed 40969781 ｜ DOI 10.1002/cesm.70048
  33. Gandhi S, Shokravi A, Chelliahpillai Y et al. Evaluating large language model performance in Risk of Bias assessments: A cross-sectional validation study. PLoS One. 2026.
    PubMed 42424352 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0353155

LV.09 合併策略：能不能做 MA？ （12 筆）

→ 前往第 9 關

  1. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Vote-counting methods in research synthesis. Psychol Bull. 1980.
    DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.88.2.359
  2. Greenland S. Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol. 1994.
    PubMed 8030632 ｜ DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117248 ｜也見於 LV.08
  3. Shapiro S. Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1994.
    PubMed 7977286 ｜ DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117324
  4. Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ. 1998.
    PubMed 9462324 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.316.7125.140
  5. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Rothstein HR. Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. BMJ. 2008.
    PubMed 18566080 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.a117
  6. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008.
    PubMed 18616818 ｜ DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
  7. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E et al. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012.
    PubMed 23185978 ｜ DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
  8. Murad MH, Mustafa RA, Schünemann HJ et al. Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect. Evid Based Med. 2017.
    PubMed 28320705 ｜ DOI 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110668 ｜也見於 LV.10
  9. Mueller M, D'Addario M, Egger M et al. Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018.
    PubMed 29783954 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0495-9
  10. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (v6). 2019.
    DOI 10.1002/9781119536604.ch10
  11. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Chapter 12: Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (v6). 2019.
    DOI 10.1002/9781119536604.ch12
  12. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020.
    PubMed 31948937 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.l6890

LV.10 GRADE 與 Summary of Findings （28 筆）

→ 前往第 10 關

  1. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004.
    PubMed 15205295 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490
  2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians?. BMJ. 2008.
    PubMed 18456631 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.be
  3. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008.
    PubMed 18436948 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad
  4. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010.
    PubMed 20434024 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.014
  5. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011.
    PubMed 21208779 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
  6. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011.
    PubMed 21195583 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
  7. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011.
    PubMed 21839614 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012
  8. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011.
    PubMed 21194891 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012
  9. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011.
    PubMed 21803546 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017
  10. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011.
    PubMed 21802903 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014
  11. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011.
    PubMed 21802904 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011
  12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011.
    PubMed 21802902 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004
  13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011.
    PubMed 21247734 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017
  14. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013.
    PubMed 23312392 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013
  15. Andrews JC, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013.
    PubMed 23570745 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.003
  16. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S et al. GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013.
    PubMed 22542023 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.006
  17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013.
    PubMed 22609141 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012
  18. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013.
    PubMed 23116689 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001
  19. Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014.
    PubMed 25252733 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.g5630
  20. Iorio A, Spencer FA, Falavigna M et al. Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients. BMJ. 2015.
    PubMed 25775931 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.h870
  21. Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ. 2016.
    PubMed 27353417 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.i2016 ｜也見於 LV.02
  22. Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N et al. Improving GRADE evidence tables part 1: a randomized trial shows improved understanding of content in summary of findings tables with a new format. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016.
    PubMed 26791430 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.007
  23. Guyatt GH, Ebrahim S, Alonso-Coello P et al. GRADE guidelines 17: assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017.
    PubMed 28529188 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.005
  24. Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA et al. The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017.
    PubMed 28529184 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006
  25. Schünemann HJ, Cuello C, Akl EA et al. GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019.
    PubMed 29432858 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.012
  26. Schünemann HJ, Mustafa RA, Brozek J et al. GRADE guidelines: 22. The GRADE approach for tests and strategies-from test accuracy to patient-important outcomes and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019.
    PubMed 30738926 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.003
  27. Foroutan F, Guyatt G, Zuk V et al. GRADE Guidelines 28: Use of GRADE for the assessment of evidence about prognostic factors: rating certainty in identification of groups of patients with different absolute risks. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020.
    PubMed 31982539 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.023
  28. Santesso N, Glenton C, Dahm P et al. GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020.
    PubMed 31711912 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.014

LV.11 PRISMA 2020 報告 （16 筆）

→ 前往第 11 關

  1. 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.
    PubMed 17302989 ｜ DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10
  2. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009.
    PubMed 19622552 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.b2700
  3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009.
    PubMed 19621072 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  4. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009.
    PubMed 19230606 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009
  5. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G et al. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013.
    PubMed 24386151 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0083138
  6. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015.
    PubMed 26030634 ｜ DOI 10.7326/m14-2385
  7. Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA. 2015.
    PubMed 25919529 ｜ DOI 10.1001/jama.2015.3656
  8. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C et al. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev. 2017.
    PubMed 28720117 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2
  9. Shea BJ, 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.
    PubMed 28935701 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.j4008 ｜AI 章 [20] ｜也見於 LV.12
  10. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD et al. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA. 2018.
    PubMed 29362800 ｜ DOI 10.1001/jama.2017.19163
  11. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al. Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020.
    PubMed 31740319 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.010
  12. Page MJ, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
    PubMed 33782057 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.n71 ｜AI 章 [19] ｜也見於 LV.09 LV.12
  13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021.
    PubMed 33577987 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003
  14. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021.
    PubMed 33781993 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmj.n160
  15. Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC et al. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022.
    PubMed 36911350 ｜ DOI 10.1002/cl2.1230
  16. Kolaski K, Logan LR, Ioannidis JPA. Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2023.
    PubMed 37291658 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-023-02255-9

LV.12 AI 時代的 Systematic Review （27 筆）

→ 前往第 12 關

  1. Goddard K, Roudsari A, Wyatt JC. Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19:121-7.
    PubMed 21685142 ｜ DOI 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089 ｜AI 章 [27]
  2. Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK et al. Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev. 2014.
    PubMed 25005128 ｜ DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-3-74
  3. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94:485-514.
    PubMed 27620683 ｜ DOI 10.1111/1468-0009.12210 ｜AI 章 [31] ｜也見於 LV.01
  4. Koffel JB, Rethlefsen ML. Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163309.
    PubMed 27669416 ｜ DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0163309 ｜AI 章 [2]
  5. McGowan J, et al. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40-6.
    PubMed 27005575 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 ｜AI 章 [4] ｜也見於 LV.04
  6. Borah R, et al. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012545.
    PubMed 28242767 ｜ DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545 ｜AI 章 [25]
  7. Bramer WM, et al. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6:245.
    PubMed 29208034 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y ｜AI 章 [5] ｜也見於 LV.04
  8. Duyx B, et al. Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:92-101.
    PubMed 28603008 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.002 ｜AI 章 [28]
  9. Beller E, Clark J, Tsafnat G et al. Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev. 2018.
    PubMed 29778096 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0740-7
  10. Waffenschmidt S, et al. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:132.
    PubMed 31253092 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0 ｜AI 章 [11] ｜也見於 LV.06
  11. Callaghan MW, Müller-Hansen F. Statistical stopping criteria for automated screening in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2020;9:273.
    PubMed 33248464 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-020-01521-4 ｜AI 章 [15]
  12. Saginur M, et al. Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2020;9:53.
    PubMed 32164791 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-020-01305-w ｜AI 章 [29]
  13. Hu K, et al. Inconsistencies in study eligibility criteria are common between non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols registered in PROSPERO. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12:394-405.
    PubMed 33522101 ｜ DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1476 ｜AI 章 [21]
  14. Rethlefsen ML, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10:39.
    PubMed 33499930 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z ｜AI 章 [3] ｜也見於 LV.04 LV.11
  15. Khalil H, Ameen D, Zarnegar A. Tools to support the automation of systematic reviews: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022.
    PubMed 34896236 ｜ DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.005
  16. Bhattacharyya M, et al. High rates of fabricated and inaccurate references in ChatGPT-generated medical content. Cureus. 2023;15(5):e39238.
    PubMed 37337480 ｜ DOI 10.7759/cureus.39238 ｜AI 章 [8]
  17. Chen L, Zaharia M, Zou J. How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time? arXiv:2307.09009. 2023.
    arxiv.org/abs/2307.09009 ｜AI 章 [30]
  18. Walters WH, Wilder EI. Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT. Sci Rep. 2023;13:14045.
    PubMed 37679503 ｜ DOI 10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5 ｜AI 章 [9]
  19. Chelli M, et al. Hallucination rates and reference accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard for systematic reviews: comparative analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e53164.
    PubMed 38776130 ｜ DOI 10.2196/53164 ｜AI 章 [7]
  20. Dennstädt F, et al. Title and abstract screening for literature reviews using large language models: an exploratory study in the biomedical domain. Syst Rev. 2024;13:158.
    PubMed 38879534 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s13643-024-02575-4 ｜AI 章 [18]
  21. Guimarães NS, et al. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews in health using ChatGPT: a critical analysis. J Transl Med. 2024;22:1.
    PubMed 38167166 ｜ DOI 10.1186/s12967-023-04371-5 ｜AI 章 [6]
  22. Panickssery A, Bowman SR, Feng S. LLM evaluators recognize and favor their own generations. arXiv:2404.13076. 2024.
    arxiv.org/abs/2404.13076 ｜AI 章 [33]
  23. Flemyng E, et al. Position statement on artificial intelligence (AI) use in evidence synthesis across Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration, JBI, and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2025. Campbell Syst Rev. 2025（另同步刊於 JBI Evid Synth、Environ Evid）.
    PubMed 41230118 ｜ DOI 10.1002/cl2.70074 ｜AI 章 [26]
  24. Lin HT, Yeh JT. meta-pipe: AI-assisted, end-to-end meta-analysis pipeline with reproducible tooling [software]. GitHub. commit 5c5c3f0 (2026-09-23).
    github.com/htlin222/meta-pipe ｜AI 章 [32]
  25. Lin HT. Robust Literature Review Pipeline [software]. GitHub. Version 1.0.0; commit e2dbfa2 (2026-09-09). 2026.
    github.com/htlin222/robust-lit-review ｜AI 章 [1]
  26. Purewal A, et al. Human versus artificial intelligence: evaluating ChatGPT's performance in conducting published systematic reviews with meta-analysis in chronic pain research. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2026.
    PubMed 39956557 ｜ DOI 10.1136/rapm-2024-106358 ｜AI 章 [17]
  27. Xie C, et al. Performance of large language models in automated medical literature screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2026.
    PubMed 42499245 ｜ DOI 10.1111/jebm.70166 ｜AI 章 [16]