中医药临床实践指南和专家共识引用 系统评价/Meta分析现况调查

The citation status of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in clinical practice guidelines and consensuses of traditional Chinese medicine

目的对中医药临床实践指南和专家共识引用系统评价/Meta分析证据的情况进行调查。方法计算机检索PubMed、CNKI、CBM和WanFang Data数据库,搜集中医药指南和共识,检索时限为2009年1月1日至2018年12月31日。由两位研究者独立筛选文献和提取信息后,分析引文特征并汇总。结果共纳入142部中医药指南和共识,其中39部(27.5%)未提供相关引文。提供引文的103部(72.5%)指南和共识中,48部(34.3%)引用了系统评价/Meta分析,但43部引用了过时的系统评价;有4部指南和共识引用了Cochrane系统评价。在引文方面,指南的平均引文量为35.1条,共识的平均引文量为42.2条。指南引用系统评价/Meta分析的平均引用量为3.8条,共识引用系统评价/Meta分析的平均引用量为5.5条。结论中医药指南和共识引文报告率和引用系统评价/Meta分析的比例仍需提高。中医药指南制订者应加强系统评价特别是Cochrane系统评价在推荐意见中的作用和意义。

Objectives To investigate the citation status of systematic reviews(SRs)/meta-analyses in clinical practice guidelines and consensuses of traditional Chinese medicine(TCM).Methods We electronically searched PubMed,CBM,WanFang Data and CNKI databases to collect TCM guidelines and consensus from January 1st,2009 to December 31st,2018.Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data.Citation analysis method was used to analyze the citation status of SRs/meta-analysis in TCM guidelines and consensuses.Results A total of 142 TCM guidelines and consensuses were included,of which 39(26.5%)failed to provide relevant citations.Of the 103(72.5%)TCM guidelines and consensuses providing citations,48(34.3%)cited SRs/meta-analyses,and 43 cited outdated SRs/meta-analyses.Four TCM guidelines and consensuses cited Cochrane reviews.In terms of citations,the average citations of guidelines and consensuses were 35.1 and 42.2,respectively;and the average SRs/meta-analyses citations of guidelines and consensuses were 3.8 and 5.5,respectively.Conclusions TCM guidelines and consensuses citation report rates and the proportion of citation SRs/meta-analyses still require increase.TCM guidelines developers should strengthen the role and significance of SRs,especially Cochrane reviews,in supporting recommendations.