期刊文献+

中医(中西医结合)临床实践指南制修订方法--证据获取与系统评价 被引量:4

Development and revision methods of clinical practice guideline(CGP) on traditional Chinese medicine(integrated medicine): Evidence acquisition and systematic review
原文传递
导出
摘要 中医(中西医结合)临床实践指南的制定需要耗费大量的人力、物力和财力。指南制定者需要检索获取与评价已有证据,并评估是否需要和如何制作新的系统评价。文章介绍了从已有指南和系统评价中检索获取证据的策略与方法,使用指南质量评估工具(AGREEⅡ)、系统评价质量评估工具(R-AMSTAR、ROBIS清单、Oxman及GuyattAMSTAR等)对获得证据进行评价与筛选的程序与方法,以及更新和制作新的系统评价的条件与方法。 Clinical practice guidelines of Chinese medicine(integrated medicine) would expend a lot of manpower, material resources and financial resources. Guideline developers needed to retrieve and evaluate existing evidence, to assess whether the new systematic review could be made and how to make it. This research introduced strategies and methods of retrieving evidence from existing guidelines and systematic reviews, how to evaluate and select the evidence with quality evaluating guidelines(AGREEⅡ), systematic reviews tools(R-AMSTAR, ROBIS list, Oxman and GuyattAMSTAR ect.), and the conditions and methods of updating and developing a new systematic review.
出处 《中华中医药杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2016年第6期2206-2209,共4页 China Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Pharmacy
基金 广东省中医院中医药科学技术研究专项(No.YK2013BINOI)~~
关键词 中医 中西医结合 指南 证据 系统评价 Chinese medicine Integrated medicine Guideline Evidence Systematic review
  • 相关文献

参考文献15

  • 1AGREE Collaboration.Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines:the AGREE project.Qual Saf Health Care,2003,(1): 18-23.
  • 2Montori V M,Wilczynski N L,Morgan D,et al.Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline analytical survey.BMJ,2005,330(7482):68.
  • 3Wilczynski N L,Haynes R B,Hedges Team.EMBASE search strategies achieved high sensitivity and specificity for retrieving methodologically sound systematic reviewsJ Clin Epidemiol,2007, 60(1):29-33.
  • 4Shea B J,Hamel C,Wells G A,et al.AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.J Clin Epidemiol,2009,62( 10): 1013-1020.
  • 5Kung J,Chiappelli F,Cajulis O O,et al.From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance.Open Dent J, 2010,4:84-91.
  • 6Whiting P,Savovia J,Higgins J P,et al.ROBIS:A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed.J Clin Epidemiol, 2016,69:225-234.
  • 7Oxman A D,Guyatt G H.Validation of an index of the quality of review articles.J Clin Epidemiol,1991,44(11): 1271-1278.
  • 8The PRISMA Group.History.http://www.prisma-statement.org/ history.htm[2015-2-9].
  • 9Moher D,Cook D J,Eastwood S,et al.Improvijag the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials:the QUOROM stalemenl.The Lancet,1999,354(9193): 1896-1900.
  • 10Moher D,Liberati A,Tetzlaff J,et al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMA statement. BMJ,2009,339:b2535.

二级参考文献29

  • 1李廷谦,刘雪梅,张鸣明,马建昕,杜亮,周宇丹,常静,王蕾,杨晓楠,王刚,张颖.中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价/Meta分析现状调查[J].中国循证医学杂志,2007,7(3):180-188. 被引量:43
  • 2Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, et al. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: A critical appraisal. Ann Surg, 2005, 241 (3): 450-459.
  • 3Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discord- ant systematic reviews. CMAJ, 1997, 156(10): 1411-1416.
  • 4Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUO- ROM statement, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 1999, 354(9193): 1896-1900.
  • 5Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 2009, 6(7): e1000097.
  • 6Wen 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.
  • 7Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical careliterature. Crit Care, 2005, 9(5): R575-582.
  • 8Mrkobrada M, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Brian HR, et al. Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2008, 3(4): 1102-1114.
  • 9Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that eval- uate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med, 2009, 6(7): e1000100.
  • 10Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5,0.2 [cited 2010 May 2010 3] Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org.

共引文献28

同被引文献110

引证文献4

二级引证文献35

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