 |
| Dr Lesley Uttley |
HEDS Dr Lesley Uttley has received an MRC Fellowship to Investigate human influences in systematic reviews and meta-analyses to improve the reliability and validity of evidence syntheses. The work looks at how systematic reviews can be done badly, why they are done badly and what should be done about it.
Title: Investigating human influences in systematic reviews and meta-analyses to improve the reliability and validity of evidence syntheses
Dr Uttley plans to use a combination of her experience in systematic reviews and wide engagement with international methodological experts and stakeholders to ensure that further scrutiny is given to systematic review teams, with regards to potential conflicts of interest, researcher allegiance and methodological skills. The aim is to ensure that systematic reviews are performed and published with integrity as these are important documents which inform decisions and ultimately, patient care.
Dr Uttley said of the award: "I've got support from leading methodologists representing key systematic review bodies (such as Cochrane and PRISMA) who agree that it's time to start scrutinising the composition of systematic review teams to ensure that they are being conducted appropriately since they are upheld as being objective and transparent pieces of research. I'll be looking at human influences such as sponsorship bias, researcher allegiance and conflicts of interest to understand how these elements may affect the productive of rigorous and trustworthy systematic reviews that are relied upon for being valid and clinically meaningful. Decisions that affect policy and healthcare should be informed by the best evidence and this project will uphold systematic reviews as the gold-standard and ensure that the reputation of systematic reviews remains high-quality, which will also lead to reduced research waste. This fellowship gives me dedicated time to pioneer this area of meta-research and research integrity, collaborating internationally with experts and stakeholders."
The five-year-project combines empirical work using novel meta-research methods with expert consensus to produce (validated) guidance and a dedicated website that will help commissioners, peer reviews and journal editors understand the importance of the team in systematic reviews.