期刊文献+

随机对照试验质量评价标准的比较分析 被引量:15

Analysis of Quality Standards Assessing Randomized Controlled Trials
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的系统收集并分析随机对照试验质量评价的相关标准并初步探究其演进规律,为标准的使用者提供参考与指导。方法计算机检索Cochrane Library、PubMed、EMBASE、中国生物医学文献数据库等数据库,并用Google等搜索引擎在互联网上查找相关资料。由两位评价员独立筛选文献,提取资料。遴选出具有代表性的标准进行对比分析。结果初检出3282篇文献,筛选相关随机对照试验质量评价标准31个,对遴选出的具有代表性的21个标准进行对比分析。其中,10个标准适用于所有类型的随机对照试验,11个标准针对药物、针灸等特定领域。标准主要从方法学质量和报告质量两个方面对随机对照试验进行评价。本研究对随机对照试验质量评价标准的发展历程进行了初步探究。结论目前随机对照试验的质量评价标准较多,评价内容、条目不一致。建议使用者根据研究内容和目的针对性地选用随机对照试验的质量评价标准。 Objective Systematically analyzing the quality assessment standards of RCT was conducted,meanwhile,the evolution of the standards was also investigated in order to provide reference or guidance for standards users.Methods An electronic search of the Cochrane Library,PubMed,EMBASE and CBM was progressed.What's more,Google and some other search engines were applied to find relevant studies.Two people screened the articles selecting those typical standards and extracted the data independently.Result 31 assessment standards were identified from 3 282 articles,and 21 of which were introduced in detail in our study.Among the 21 standards,10 were designed for all kinds of RCTs and others could only be applied to special fields,such as acupuncture.Besides,the regularity of these standards' evolution was explored.Conclusion The existing RCT quality assessment standards are numerous and various from each other,so users are advised to choose standards objectively.
出处 《循证医学》 CSCD 2010年第6期369-373,共5页 The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
基金 兰州大学循证医学中心"循证医学创新项目"(2009LDEBM-B)
关键词 随机对照试验 质量评价 randomized controlled trial quality assessment
  • 相关文献

参考文献27

  • 1Byar DP,Simon RM,Friedewald WT,et al.Randomized clinical trials perspectives on some recent ideas[J].N Engl J Med,1976,295(5):74-80.
  • 2Chalmers TC.Smith H Jr,Blackburn B,et M.A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial[J].Contwl Clin Trials.1981,2(1):31-49.
  • 3Weintranb Appmisal Tool[EB/OL].[2009-7].http://ssrc.tums.ac.ir/SystematieReview/Weintraub.asp.
  • 4Thomson Appraisal Tool[EB/OL].[2009-7].http://sarc.rums.ac.ir/SystematicReview/Thomson.asp.
  • 5Mary Evans Appraisal Tool[EB/OL].[2009-7].http://ssrc.tums.ac.ir/SystematicReview/Evans.asp.
  • 6Bland JM.Jones DR,Bennett S,et al.Is the clinicM trial evidence about new drugs statistically adequate?[J].Br J Glin Pharmacol,1985,19(2):155-160.
  • 7G.Ter Pdet Appraisal Tool[EB/OL].[2009-7].http://ssrc.tums.ac.ir/SystematicReview/GTerRiet.asp.
  • 8Detsky AS,Naylor CD,O'Rourke K,et al.Incorporating variations in the quality of individusl randomized triah into meta-analysis[J].J Clin Epidemiol,1992,45(3):255-265.
  • 9Beckeman H,de Bie RA,Bouter LM.et al.The efficacy of laser therapy for muscu,loskeletal and skin disorders:A eriteria-based meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials[J].Phys Ther.1992.72(7):483-491.
  • 10Numohamed Appraisal Tool[EB/OL].[2009-7].http://ssrc.tums.ac.ir/SystematicReview/Nurrnohamed.asp.

二级参考文献11

  • 1Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 2004, 328(7454): 1490.
  • 2Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ, 1988, 138(8): 697-703.
  • 3Schunemann H, Fretheim A, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst, 2006, 4: 22.
  • 4Fletcher SW, Spitzer WO. Approach of the Canadian Task Force to the periodic health examination. Ann Intern Med, 1980, 92(2 Pt 1): 253-254.
  • 5Schunemann HI, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, et al. An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2006, 174(5): 605-614.
  • 6Guyatt G, Cook D, Devereaux PJ, et al. Therapy. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, eds. The users' guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: AMA publications, 2002.
  • 7Montori VM, Devereaux PJ Adhikari NK, et al. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review, lAMA, 2005, 294(17): 2203-2209.
  • 8Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, et al. When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ, 2007, 334(7589): 349-351.
  • 9Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson R. Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists. Cochrane Database, Syst Rev, 2000; (2): CD001855.
  • 10Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Briet E. Thromboembolic and bleeding complications in patients with mechanical heart valve prostheses. Circulation, 1994, 89(2): 635-641.

共引文献11

同被引文献246

引证文献15

二级引证文献116

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部