近5年中国科学引文数据库护理干预性系统评价/Meta分析报告质量分析

Systematic Review/Meta-analysis of Intervention Published in Nursing Journal of Chinese Science Citation Database in Recent 5 Years

目的评价近5年中国科学引文数据库收录的护理期刊发表的干预性系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量,以期规范其研究过程和报告方法,提升系统评价/Meta分析质量。方法计算机检索CNKI、VIP、CBM和Wanfang数据库,搜集中国科学引文数据库收录的护理期刊发表的干预性系统评价/Meta分析研究,检索时限为2015年1月—2020年6月。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料,采用系统评价和Meta分析优先报告的条目进行报告质量评价;采用Office Excel 2019、Stata 15.0软件对相关数据进行统计和分析。结果共纳入干预性系统评价/Meta分析176篇,其PRISMA评分为14.5~24.5分(20.17±2.00),其中有1篇研究评分≤15分,有严重信息缺失;122篇评分为15~21分,存在一定报告缺陷;53篇评分为21~27分,报告相对完全。报告质量不足主要表现为结构式摘要(0/176),方案和注册(0/176),检索策略(55/176),研究间偏倚(26/176)和资金支持(0/176)报告不全面。亚组分析结果显示:有基金资助、作者单位性质为医院和单位数为1个可明显提高系统评价/Meta分析报告质量(P<0.05);作者人数对系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量影响不显著(P>0.05)。结论目前,我国护理领域干预性系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量差异较大。因此,有必要采取相应的措施,加大对PRISMA的宣传和普及,推动其在护理期刊稿约中的引用;研究人员应严格遵守PRISMA相关条目,规范、详细地进行报告;护理期刊的编辑和审稿人在同行评审阶段也要严格遵循PRISMA的指导方针,以期提高系统评价/Meta分析的质量。

Objectives To evaluate the reporting quality of interventional systematic reviews/meta-analyses(SRs/MAs)published in nursing journals included in the Chinese Science Citation Database in the past 5 years,to standardize the research process and reporting methods and to improve the quality of SRs/MAs.Methods CNKI、VIP、CBM and Wanfang electronically searched to collect interventional SRs/MAs published in nursing journals included in Chinese Science Citation Database from January 2015 to June 2020.Two researchers independently screened literature,extracted data,and assessed the reporting quality using preferred reporting items for SRs/Mas.Excel 2019,and Stata15.0 software were then used for statistical analysis.Results A total of 176 SRs/MAs were included and their PRISMA scores ranged from 14.5 to 24.5(20.17±2.00),including 1 study with a score≤15 and serious information missing,122 scoring from 15 to 21 showing some reporting defects;and 53 scoring from 21 to 27 with relatively complete reporting.The poor quality of reports was mainly manifested as structured summary(0/176),protocol and registration(0/176),search strategy reports(55/176),risk of bias in individual studies(26/176)and incomplete reporting of funding(0/176).Subgroup analysis showed that the quality of SRs/MAs could be significantly improved by funding,authors working in hospitals and only one unit(P<0.05);the number of authors had no significant effect on the quality of SRs/MAs(P>0.05).Conclusion Currently,the reporting quality of interventional SRs/MAs in the field of nursing varies greatly in China.Therefore,it is necessary to take corresponding measures to increase the publicity and popularity of PRISMA and promote its citation in nursing journal manuscripts.Researchers should strictly follow PRISMA related items and reports in a normative and detailed way.Editors and reviewers of nursing journals should also strictly follow PRISMA guidelines during peer review so as to improve the quality of SRs/MAs.