苟亚妮, 金安琴, 史琳, 熊海芮, 韦丽娜, 田红岩, 黄晓俊. 国内溃疡性结肠炎系统评价/Meta分析研究的方法学质量评价[J]. 循证医学, 2014, 14(4): 219-223. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-5144.2014.04.011
    引用本文: 苟亚妮, 金安琴, 史琳, 熊海芮, 韦丽娜, 田红岩, 黄晓俊. 国内溃疡性结肠炎系统评价/Meta分析研究的方法学质量评价[J]. 循证医学, 2014, 14(4): 219-223. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-5144.2014.04.011
    GOU Ya-ni, JIN An-qin, SHI Lin, XIONG Hai-rui, WEI Li-na, TIAN Hong-yan, HUANG Xiao-jun. Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Ulcerative Colitis Field in China[J]. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2014, 14(4): 219-223. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-5144.2014.04.011
    Citation: GOU Ya-ni, JIN An-qin, SHI Lin, XIONG Hai-rui, WEI Li-na, TIAN Hong-yan, HUANG Xiao-jun. Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Ulcerative Colitis Field in China[J]. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2014, 14(4): 219-223. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-5144.2014.04.011

    国内溃疡性结肠炎系统评价/Meta分析研究的方法学质量评价

    Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Ulcerative Colitis Field in China

    • 摘要: 目的 评价中文期刊发表的关于溃疡性结肠炎的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量。 方法 系统检索中国生物医学文献数据库、中文科技期刊全文数据库、中国期刊全文数据库及中华医学会数字化期刊,并辅以手工检索,检索时间截止至2012年12月,全面收集中文发表的有关溃疡性结肠炎的系统评价/Meta分析,使用系统评价质量评价工具AMSTAR进行评价分析。 结果 共纳入文献46篇,绝大部分研究类型(93%)为Meta分析;文献研究类型涉及溃疡性结肠炎的病因、诊断及治疗等方面,其中以治疗类文献最多(89.1%);绝大多数文献(96.1%)发表于非循证医学类期刊上,由中国科学引文数据库收录的仅有30.4%;所有的文献均未进行后期更新;其AMSTAR量表平均得分(7.17±1.59)分(3~10分)。AMSTAR评价条目符合率达到80%的有5项,符合率在50%~80%的有3项,符合率小于50%的有3项。 结论 目前国内溃疡性结肠炎领域系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量各条目质量参差不齐,尚需进一步提高方法学质量。

       

      Abstract: Objectives To examine epidemiological and reporting characteristics as well as methodological quality of SRs of Ulcerative Colitis published in Chinese journals. Methods Four Chinese databases were searched (CNKI, CBM, Wanfang and VIP) for SRs of UC, from inception through Dec 2012. Data were extracted into Excel spreadsheets. The AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality. Results A total of 46 SRs were identified, meta-analysis was conducted in almost all the reviews (93%) and there were no significant differences between groups. Pathogenesis review, diagnosis review and cure review were included. Most of the reviews (96.1%) were published in general journals. Only one-third (30.4%) were published in journals cited by Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD). None of the reviews had been updated. Most (96.2%) used appropriate methods to combine the findings of studies. About half (50.0%) reported assessing for publication bias. Only a few reviews (9.6%) reported on conflict of interest and ‘a priori' design were not provided for any reviews. Conclusions As a whole, the included reviews and meta-analyses have more or less flaws with regard to the quality of methodology based on the AMSTAR checklists. Focusing on the improvement of methodological quality of systematic review/meta-analysis in ulcerative colitis field in China is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回