国内期刊发表的预防老年谵妄随机对照试验研究文献质量评价

Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials of delirium prevention of elderly in China

目的 了解国内期刊发表的预防老年谵妄随机对照试验（RCT）研究的文献质量.方法 应用中国知网数据库（CNKI）、万方医学期刊数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库,对国内期刊发表的预防老年谵妄的RCT文献进行检索,对检索到的文献结合纳入、排除标准进行筛选.采用Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具和Jadad评价量表对文献质量进行评价.结果 共纳入53篇文献.Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具显示14篇（26.4％,14/53）文献按随机数字表进行随机分配,4篇文献（7.5％,4/53）对结果测评者采取盲法,7篇文献（13.2％,7/53）对未完成试验的研究对象未采取意向性分析,9篇文献（17.0％,9/53）存在其他方面的高偏倚风险,无文献对随机分配方案的隐藏、研究对象及干预实施者采取盲法等信息进行描述.Jadad评价量表显示纳入的文献得分1～4（2.3±0.8）分,3～4分的高质量文献19篇（35.8％,19/53）.结论 国内期刊发表的预防老年谵妄的RCT文献质量总体不高,今后应进行高质量的研究,以更好地指导临床实践.

Objective To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials （RCTs） of delirium prevention of elderly published in China.Methods The literatures from China National Knowledge Infrastructure（CNKI）,WANFANG Data and VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals were evaluated according to Cochrane collaboration＇s tool for assessing risk of bias and Jadad scale.Results A total of 53 RCTs were included,14 （26.4%,14/53） described radom number table used to generate the random allocation sequence,4 （7.5%,4/53） conducted experiments in a ＆quot;blinded＆quot; manner,7 （13.2%,7/53） did not use intentionto-treat to analyse those who did not complete the study,9 （17.0%,9/53） had high risk of other bias,none described allocation concealment mechanism and blinding to participants and intercention implementers.Based on Jadad scales,the score was 1-4,average score was （2.3±0.8）,19 （35.8%,19/53） were high-quality literatures.Conclusions The quality of present published literatures is not high,the further domestic studies should be designed high-quality to better improve clinical practice.