期刊文献+

多系统评价评估问卷量表在口腔医学领域中文系统评价应用中的信度和效度评价 被引量:2

Assessment of reliability and validity of assessment of multiple systematic reviews in Chinese systematic re-views on stomatology
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的评价多系统评价评估问卷(AMSTAR)量表应用于口腔医学领域中文系统评价中的一致性、信度和效度。方法计算机检索中国生物医学文献数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库和中国期刊全文数据库,截止日期为2011年3月1日。手工检索19种中文口腔医学杂志,检索已发表的口腔医学类系统评价。2名评价者分别用总体质量评估问卷(OQAQ)量表和AMSTAR量表对系统评价进行评价,计算观察者间使用AMSTAR量表的Kappa值,AMSTAR量表重测信度的级内相关系数(ICC)以及AMSTAR和OQAQ量表得分的最大得分百分比的级内相关系数(结构效度)。结果纳入52篇系统评价文献。评价者使用AMSTAR量表的Kappa值为0.81[95%C(I0.73,0.89)],使用OQAQ量表的Kappa值为0.74[95%CI(0.66,0.83)]。重测信度的ICC为0.98[95%CI(0.97,0.99),P=0.000]。内部一致性信度Cronbach’α为0.69[95%CI(0.56,0.80),P=0.000]。AMSTAR和OQAQ量表最大得分百分比的ICC为0.94[95%CI(0.90,0.97),P=0.000]。结论 AMSTAR量表在应用于口腔医学领域系统评价时有很好的一致性、信度和效度。AMSTAR量表可很好的推广至口腔医学领域进行系统评价的方法学质量评价,为医务工作者进行系统评价方法学质量评价时带来了较大的便利。 Objective To measure the agreement, reliability and validity of assessment of multiple systematic re- views (AMSTAR) to assess Chinese systematic reviews on stomatology. Methods A comprehensive electronic search was made through Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals and China National Knowledge Infrastructure electronically on March 1~ 2011 together with handsearch through 19 stomato- logical journals to identify published Chinese systematic reviews on stomatology. Each systematic review was assessed by two reviewers with overview quality assessment questionnaire (OQAQ) and AMSTAR. And reliability (interobserver Kappa of the 11 AMSTAR items), interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the sum scores and construct validity (ICC of the sum scores of AMSTAR compared with those of the OQAQ) were reported. Results A total of 52 sys- tematic reviews on stomatology were eligible. The reviewers agreement of the individual items of AMSTAR was with a mean Kappa of 0.81195%CI (0.73, 0.89)] while the OQAQ was 0.74195%ci (0.66, 0.83)]. The ICC of the total score for AMSTAR was 0.98195%CI (0.97, 0.99), P=0.000]. Cronbach' ct was 0.69195%CI (0.56, 0.80), P=0.000]. And ICC of the sum scores of AMSTAR compared with those of the OQAQ was 0.94195%CI (0.90, 0.97), P=0.000]. Conclusion AMSTAR has good agreement, reliability and validity. AMSTAR can be well used in Chinese stomato-logy and can bring dentists much convenience when assess the methodological quality of systematical reviews on stomatology.
出处 《华西口腔医学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2013年第1期49-52,共4页 West China Journal of Stomatology
基金 2010年全国“大学生创新性实验计划”基金资助项目(101061001)
关键词 循证医学 系统评价 方法学质量 信度 效度 evidence-based medicine systematicreview methodological quality reliability validity
  • 相关文献

参考文献14

  • 1王家良;王滨有.临床流行病学[M]北京:人民卫生出版社,200866-100.
  • 2Higgins JPT,Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1[M].Chichester:John Wiley and Sons,Inc,2008.27-50.
  • 3史宗道.循证口腔医学[M]北京:人民卫生出版社,200875-88.
  • 4Shea B J,Bouter LM,Peterson J. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews(AMSTAP)[J].PLoS One,2007,(12):e1350.
  • 5Barnes DE,Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions[J].Journal of the American Medical Association,1998,(19):1566-1570.
  • 6Cho MK,Bero LA. The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings[J].Annals of Internal Medicine,1996,(05):485-489.
  • 7Lexchin J,Bero LA,Djulbegovic B. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality:Systematic review[J].British Medical Journal,2003,(7400):1167-1170.
  • 8Shea B J,Grimshaw JM,Wells GA. Development of AMS-TAR:A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews[J].BMC Medical Research Methodology,2007.10.
  • 9Shea B J,Hamel C,Wells GA. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews[J].Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,2009,(10):1013-1020.
  • 10Mullen PD,Ramírez G. The promise and pitfalls of systematic reviews[J].Annual Review of Public Health,2006.81-102.

二级参考文献14

  • 1刘建平,夏芸.中文期刊发表的中医药系统综述或Meta-分析文章的质量评价[J].中国中西医结合杂志,2007,27(4):306-311. 被引量:59
  • 2Beverley J Shea,Jeremy M Grimshaw,George A Wells.Development of AMSTAR:a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews[J].BMC Medical Research Methodology,2007:7-10.
  • 3David Moher,Alessandro Liberati,Jennifer Tetzlaff.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses:the PRISMAstatement[J].research methods & reporting.8 august 2009(339):332-339.
  • 4Moher D,Jadad AR,Nichol G,et al.Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trial:an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists[J].Control Clin Trails,1995,16(1):62-73.
  • 5Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLos Med,2009,6(7) :e1000100.
  • 6Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med,2007,4 (3) :e78.
  • 7Hemels ME, Vicente C, Sadri H, et al. Quality assessment of meta-analyses of RCTs of pharmaeotherapy in major depressive disorder. Curr Med Res Opin,2004,20(4) :477-484.
  • 8Li CJ, Shi ZD. Letter to the editor. Clin Ther, 2010,32 (2) : 396-397.
  • 9Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature: essentials of evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2008.
  • 10Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, et al. The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2008,61 (8) :770-775.

共引文献11

同被引文献22

引证文献2

二级引证文献2

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