中文期刊发表的氨甲环酸Meta分析的报告质量与方法学质量评价

Reporting and methodological quality of tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals

目的系统评价中文期刊发表的氨甲环酸临床疗效Meta分析的报告质量和方法学质量。方法计算机检索CBM、WanFang Data和CNKI数据库,搜集中文期刊发表的氨甲环酸临床效果的Meta分析,检索时限均为建库至2021年8月12日。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料后,采用AMSTAR 2与PRISMA 2009分别评价纳入研究的方法学质量与报告质量。结果共纳入68篇Meta分析。氨甲环酸Meta分析的方法学质量需要改进的内容主要涉及AMSTAR 2的条目2、3、4、7、8、10、12、15和16,报告质量需要提高的方面主要涉及PRISMA 2009的条目2、5、8、12、15、17、22、24和27。纳入Meta分析的方法学质量与报告质量评分具有弱正相关性(rs=0.36,P=0.002)。线性回归分析表明PRISMA提及和基金资助是潜在影响报告质量评分的独立因素(P<0.05)。结论中文期刊发表的氨甲环酸临床效果Meta分析的方法学质量和报告质量尚有待提高。

Objective To analyze the reporting and methodological quality of tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals.Methods The CNKI,WanFang Data,and CBM databases were electronically searched for meta-analyses of tranexamic acid from inception to August 12 th,2021.Two reviewers independently screened literature,extracted data,and used AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA 2009 to assess the methodological and reporting quality of publications.Results A total of 68 meta-analyses were included.The identified meta-analyses required improvement for items 2,3,4,7,8,10,12,15,and 16 in the AMSTAR 2,and items 2,5,8,12,15,17,22,24,and 27 in the PRISMA 2009 assessments,respectively.The methodological and reporting quality scores were positively correlated(rs=0.36,P=0.002).Linear regression analysis identified the mentioning of PRISMA and funding support as the independent factors potentially affecting the reporting quality score(P<0.05).Conclusions Both the methodological and reporting quality of the tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals require improvement.