小儿推拿类系统评价/Meta分析的质量评价

Quality assessment of pediatric tuina systematic reviews/meta-analyses

目的评价国内外已发表的小儿推拿类系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量和报告质量。方法计算机检索CBM、VIP、CNKI、WanFang Data、PubMed、EMbase和The Cochrane Library数据库,搜集已发表的小儿推拿类系统评价/Meta分析,检索时限均从建库至2018年12月10日。采用系统评价方法学质量评价工具AMSTAR2和报告质量评价工具PRISMA量表评价纳入的系统评价/Meta分析质量,采用Excel软件进行数据整理和统计分析。结果共纳入小儿推拿类系统评价/Meta分析18篇(中文14篇和英文4篇)。在方法学质量方面:低质量6篇,极低质量12篇。所有研究均未描述纳入研究设计类型的原因,极少部分研究说明前期方案、排除文献清单及理由、基金资助。报告质量方面:相对完整7篇,一定缺陷10篇,严重缺陷1篇。存在问题的条目依次为方案和注册、全面检索、信息来源、资金支持等。结论小儿推拿类系统评价/Meta分析在方法学质量和报告质量方面存在不同程度问题,仍需要进一步提高及不断加强。

Objectives To evaluate the methodology quality and report quality of the published systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of pediatric tuina domestically and abroad.Methods CBM,VIP,CNKI,WanFang Data,PubMed,EMbase,and The Cochrane Library were electronically searched to collect published pediatric tuina SRs/MAs from inception to December 10th,2018.The SRs/MAs which includes scale evaluation used AMSTAR2 and the PRISMA report quality evaluation tool to systematically review methodology,adopts Excel to carry out data collation and statistical analysis.Results A total of 18 studies (14 in Chinese and 4 in English) on the SRs/MAs of pediatric tuina were finally included.In terms of methodological quality,6 studies were of low quality and 12 studies were of very low quality. All studies did not explain the reasons for adopting a particular research design type,and few of them explained the preplan, exclusion list,reasons and funding.In terms of report quality,7 studies were relatively complete,10 studies had certain defects and one study had serious defects.The existing problems were program and registration,comprehensive retrieval,information sources,financial support and so on.Conclusions SRs/MAs of pediatric tuina have different degrees of issues in terms of methodological quality and report quality which still require further improvement and continuous strengthening.