期刊文献+

学术型外科医师如何撰写系统评价和Meta分析? 被引量:3

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Techniques and a Guide for the Academic Surgeon
原文传递
导出
摘要 随着外科学领域文献数量的快速增长,越来越需要对现有证据进行评价和总结,使其能够更适用于临床。当针对某一临床问题的高质量临床试验很少时,对系统评价的结果解释就比较困难。若坚持使用严格的评价方法 (包括全面的文献检索、主要研究的质量评价、恰当的统计学方法、对估计值和偏倚风险的信度评估等),就可以将偏倚风险降到最低,并可能得出有用结论。因此,本文的目的是:(1)总结外科学领域全面严格的系统评价和meta分析的重要特征;(2)强调几个未广泛应用的统计学方法 ,相对于传统的两两对照数据合成,这些方法可能会开拓更广泛有趣的视野;(3)为全面分析和结果撰写提供一个指南。 With the rapidly growing literature across the surgical disciplines, there is a corresponding need to critically appraise and summarize the currently available evidence so they can be applied appropriately to patient care. The interpretation of systematic reviews is particularly challenging in cases where few robust clinical trials have been performed to address a particular question. However, risk of bias can be minimized and potentially useful conclusions can be drawn if strict review methodology is adhered to, including an exhaustive literature search, quality appraisal of primary studies, appropriate statistical methodology, assessment of confidence in estimates and risk of bias. Therefore, the following article aims to: (Ⅰ) summarize to the important features of a thorough and rigorous systematic review or meta-analysis for the surgical literature; (Ⅱ) highlight several underused statistical approaches which may yield further interesting insights compared to conventional pair-wise data synthesis techniques; and (Ⅲ) propose a guide for thorough analysis and presentation of results.
出处 《中国胸心血管外科临床杂志》 CAS CSCD 2015年第5期409-417,共9页 Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
关键词 系统评价 META分析 外科 结局 森林图 网络Meta分析 Meta回归 Systematic review Meta-analysis Surgery Outcomes Forest plot Network meta-analysis Meta-regression
  • 相关文献

参考文献72

  • 1Oxman AD, Cook DI, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. IAMA,1994, 272:1367-1371.
  • 2Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JP. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ, 200, 327:1083-1084.
  • 3Murad MH, Montori VM. Synthesizing evidence: shifting the focus from individual studies to the body of evidence. JAMA, 2013, 309: 2217-2218.
  • 4Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med, 1997, 126: 376-380.
  • 5Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7:10.
  • 6Wilson P, Petticrew M. Why promote the findings of single research studies? BMJ, 2008, 336: 722.
  • 7Petticrew M. Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. BMJ, 2003, 326: 756-758.
  • 8Phan K, Tsai YC, Niranjan N, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replace- ment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Sur~, 2015, 4: 100-111.
  • 9Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, et al. Cochrane Update. 'Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review. J Public Health (Oxf), 2011, 33: 147- 150.
  • 10Wright CC, Sim J. Intention-to-treat approach to data from rando- mized controlled trials: a sensitivity analysis. J Clin Epidemiol, 2003, 56: 833-842.

同被引文献17

引证文献3

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