期刊文献+

《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量评价 被引量:41

Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses of Intervention Published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的分析《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量及其影响因素,以期为改善国内干预类系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量提供依据。方法检索《中国循证医学杂志》从创刊至2011年底所发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析,采用AMSTAR量表对纳入研究的方法学质量进行评价。数据录入采用Excel软件,统计分析采用Meta-Analyst软件。结果共纳入干预类系统评价/Meta分析379篇,其AMSTAR量表平均得分6.15±1.35分(1.5~9.5分)。纳入研究的发表年代、是否有基金资助、作者数、作者单位性质和作者单位数仅对AMSTAR量表部分条目评分有影响。2008年及其以后发表的系统评价/Meta分析的AMSTAR总分高于2008年以前(P=0.02),但提高程度有限,作者数≥3人的系统评价/Meta分析AMSTAR总分高于≤2人者(P=0.04)。结论《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量参差不齐,虽AMSTAR发布后方法学质量有所改善,但不明显,需进一步提高方法学质量。 Objective To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of interven- tion published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, so as to provide evidence for improving the domestic methodological quality. Methods The systematic reviews or meta-analyses of intervention published from 2001 to 2011 were identified by searching the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by AMSTAR scale. The Excel software was used to input data, and Mata-Analyst software was used to conduct statistical analysis. Results A total of 379 studies were included. The average score of AMSTAR was 6.15±1.35 ( 1.5-9.5 point). Just some items of AMSTAR scale were influenced by the following features of included studies: publica- tion date, funded or not, number of author, author's unit, and number of author's unit. The total AMSTAR score of stud- ies published after 2008 was higher than those published before 2008 (P=0.02), but the improvement of methodological quality was limited. While the total AMSTAR score of studies published by 3 or more than 3 authors were higher than those published by 2 or less than 2 authors (P=0.04). Conclusion The methodological quality of the included studies published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics is uneven. Although the methodological quality improves somewhat after the publication of AMSTAR scale, there is no big progress, so it still needs to be further improved.
出处 《中国循证医学杂志》 CSCD 2013年第5期605-611,共7页 Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine
基金 2011年兰州大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助(编号:lzjbky2011-13)
关键词 系统评价 META分析 报告质量 方法学 AMSTAR量表 中国循证医学杂志 Systematic review Meta-analysis Reporting quality Methodology AMSTAR scale Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
  • 相关文献

参考文献18

二级参考文献221

共引文献685

同被引文献532

引证文献41

二级引证文献221

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