LI Meixuan 1,2,3 , LI Yanfei 1,2,3,4,5 , LIU Qian 1,3 , HU Mingqi 2,3 , LU Yongbin 1,2,3 , KONG Weize 1,3 , HE Xin 2,3 , GUO Liping 1,2,3 , Nina Ashley Dela Cruz 1,2,3 , HOU Liangying 1,2,3 , WEI Zhipeng 1,2,3 , Howard White 1,2,3 , YANG Kehu 1,2,3 , LI Xiuxia 1,2,3
  • 1. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 2. Center for Evidence-Based Social Science/Center for Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 3. Gansu Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 4. School of Information Science and Engineering, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 5. Key Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Computing Power Technology, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
YANG Kehu, Email: yangkh-ebm@lzu.edu.cn; LI Xiuxia, Email: lixiuxia@lzu.edu.cn
Systematic review; Replication research; Reproducibility; Replicability; Open science; Research transparency
10.7507/1672-2531.202509125
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

As the highest level of evidence in evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews have a profound impact on clinical practice and policy-making. However, challenges remain regarding the methodological rigor and reproducibility of their results. In recent years, replication research on systematic reviews has emerged as a critical approach to ensuring evidence quality, rational allocation of research resources and advancing evidence-based medicine. This article systematically reviews the theoretical foundations and research value of replication studies in systematic reviews, with a focus on their core design principles and implementation process. Key methodological steps are discussed, including assessing the necessity of replication, determining the type of replication, pre-registration, obtaining data and code, conducting independent re-analyses, and evaluating result consistency. Meanwhile, using the childhood deworming program as an illustrative case, we further outline the practical workflow of conducting replication research and demonstrate its importance in confirming the robustness of evidence and strengthening confidence in decision-making. In addition, this study synthesizes the methodological challenges encountered throughout the entire replication process, from literature searching to data analysis, and discusses future directions involving the integration of artificial intelligence, the development of reporting standards such as PRITERS, and the establishment of supportive research infrastructures. Overall, this work aims to provide methodological guidance for the standardized conduct of replication studies and to support the high-quality development of evidence-informed practice.

Citation： LI Meixuan, LI Yanfei, LIU Qian, HU Mingqi, LU Yongbin, KONG Weize, HE Xin, GUO Liping, Nina Ashley Dela Cruz, HOU Liangying, WEI Zhipeng, Howard White, YANG Kehu, LI Xiuxia. The process and methods of replication research on systematic reviews. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2026, 26(3): 352-358. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202509125 Copy

Copyright ? the editorial department of Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine of West China Medical Publisher. All rights reserved

  • Previous Article

    Sample size estimation methods for master protocol design and insights into their application in clinical research on syndrome-based traditional Chinese medicine

  • Next Article

    Interpretation of the COSMIN reporting guideline 2.0 for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)