国内医院药学人员系统评价/Meta分析文献发表与质量研究

Publication and Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses Conducted by Hospital Pharmacists in China

目的通过对国内医院药学人员系统评价/Meta分析的发表状况及质量进行分析,了解并推进循证药学评价的发展和应用。方法计算机检索CBM、CNKI、WanFang Data、VIP、CMCI以及e Cochrane Library、EMbase和PubMed,查找国内医院药学人员公开发表的中英文系统评价和Meta分析,文献检索时间均从建库至2011年4月15日。由2位评价员分别按照纳入与排除标准选择文献、提取资料,并采用OQAQ量表和PRISMA量表对纳入研究方法学和报告质量进行评估,如遇分歧通过讨论或咨询第三方解决。采用SPSS 17.0软件进行数据统计与分析。结果共纳入中文文献216篇(包括西药及中药),英文文献15篇。统计分析结果显示,国内医院药学人员发表的系统评价/Meta分析自2008年起,每年文献量近于翻倍,文献来源地主要集中于北京、四川,分布于《中国药房》、《中国循证医学杂志》等62种杂志,涉及87家医院药学部门。中文文献总下载频次为14 346次,中文和外文文献总被引频次为154次。对纳入研究为RCT的220篇系统评价和Meta分析进行方法学和报告质量评估,结果显示:方法学质量评分最高6分,最低3分,平均4.28±0.56分;报告质量评分最高22.5分,最低9分,平均16.55±2.96分。结论我国医院循证药学评价在国内虽起步较晚,但发展迅速,为制定药物政策、临床用药指南和开展合理用药工作提供了大量证据,但其方法学和报告质量尚需进一步提高。

Objective Through assessing the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China, to learn relevant situations and to promote the development and application of evidence-based pharmacy in hospital. Methods The following databases such as CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP, CMCI, The Cochrane Library, EMbase and PubMed were searched from the establishment date to April 15th, 2011, to collect all published systematic reviews/meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China. Two reviewers independently extracted the published information according to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, and assessed the methodology and reporting quality of the included literatures with OQAQ and PRISMA. Disagreements were discussed or resolved by the third reviewer. Data analysis was conducted by using SPSS17.0 software. Results Two hundred and sixteen Chinese literatures （including 40 on traditional Chinese medicine）, and 15 English literatures were identified. The number of literatures has increased rapidly since 2008. Beijing and Sichuan were the top 2 districts in the number of literatures. All of the included literatures were published in 62 magazines sponsored by 87 hospitals, such as China Pharmacy, and Chinese Journey of Evidence-Based Medicine. The total downloads of Chinese literatures were 14346, and the total citations of all literatures were 154. The methodology and reporting quality of the randomized controlled trials （RCTs） involved in 220 systematic reviews/meta-analyses literatures were assessed, which showed the highest and lowest scores of methodological quality were 6 and 3, respectively, and the average score was 4.27＋0.55. The highest and lowest scores of reporting quality were 22.5 and 9, respectively, and the average score was 16.49＋_2.98. Conclusion Although the evidence-based pharmacy in hospital begins late in China, it develops rapidly, and offers lots of evidence to policy decision, guidelines and rational drug use. However, there is still room for improvement of the methodology and reporting quality in future reviews.