期刊文献+

系统评价方法学质量评价工具AMSTAR 2解读 被引量:268

An Introduction to AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews
下载PDF
导出
摘要 AMSTAR 2是在第一版的基础上最新研发的系统评价方法学质量评价工具,具有较好的评价者间一致性和实用性。AMSTAR 2的适应范围包括基于随机对照研究或非随机干预研究或两者都有的系统评价,共含16个条目,其中7个条目为关键条目,系统评价的总体质量即对总的评价结果进行分级。本文就AMSTAR 2的基本情况、评价条目和评价标准等进行解读,以期为国内的用户提供参考。 AMSTAR 2 is currently revised and updated based on the original AMSTAR instrument, which is an appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both, and has good inter-rater agreement and usability. AMSTAR 2 is applied to systematic review of RCT or NRSI or both of them. AMSTAR 2 has 16 items in total, and seven domains can critically affect the validity of a review and its conclusions. Researchers recommend that users adopt the rating process based on identification of critical domains, or some variations based on this principle. We aim to introduce AMSTAR 2 to researchers and users from china, in view of basic information, assessment items and rating overall confidence in the results of the review.
出处 《中国循证心血管医学杂志》 2018年第1期14-18,共5页 Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine
关键词 系统评价 方法学 质量评价 工具 AMSTAR Systematic review Methodology Quality assessment Tool AMSTAR
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献31

  • 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
  • 2Porta M. Chief editor. A dictionary of epidemiology. Fifth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008: 217.
  • 3刘建平, 主编. 循证中医药研究方法. 第1版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2009: 298-299.
  • 4Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, et al . Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr , 2002, 2(2): 1-3.
  • 5Jadad A, Moher M, Browman G, et al . Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ , 2000, 321(7256): 537-540.
  • 6Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analysis: a comparison of Cochrane paper-based journals. JAMA , 1998, 280(3): 278-280.
  • 7Shea B, Dubé C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUOROM statement compared to other tools. In: Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in context. Edited by: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. London: BMJ books, 2001: 122-139.
  • 8Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles. BMJ , 1994, 309(6955): 648-651.
  • 9Sacks H, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al . Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med , 1987, 316(8): 450-455.
  • 10Moher D. Cook DJ. Eastwood S, et al . Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet , 1999; 354(9193): 1896-1900.

共引文献363

同被引文献2850

引证文献268

二级引证文献898

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