Methodological quality(risk of bias)assessment is an important step before study initiation usage.Therefore,accurately judging study type is the first priority,and the choosing proper tool is also important.In this re...Methodological quality(risk of bias)assessment is an important step before study initiation usage.Therefore,accurately judging study type is the first priority,and the choosing proper tool is also important.In this review,we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial(including individual and cluster),animal study,non-randomized interventional studies(including follow-up study,controlled before-and-after study,before-after/pre-post study,uncontrolled longitudinal study,interrupted time series study),cohort study,case-control study,cross-sectional study(including analytical and descriptive),observational case series and case reports,comparative effectiveness research,diagnostic study,health economic evaluation,prediction study(including predictor finding study,prediction model impact study,prognostic prediction model study),qualitative study,outcome measurement instruments(including patient-reported outcome measure development,content validity,structural validity,internal consistency,cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance,reliability,measurement error,criterion validity,hypotheses testing for construct validity,and responsiveness),systematic review and meta-analysis,and clinical practice guideline.The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools.In one word,comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.展开更多
通过评价中医药治疗神经根型颈椎病(cervical radiculopathy,CR)动物实验文献的方法学及报告质量,分析其在实验中存在的不足,寻找提高中医药治疗CR动物实验研究质量的方法。计算机检索中国知网(CNKI)、万方(Wanfang)、维普(VIP)、中国...通过评价中医药治疗神经根型颈椎病(cervical radiculopathy,CR)动物实验文献的方法学及报告质量,分析其在实验中存在的不足,寻找提高中医药治疗CR动物实验研究质量的方法。计算机检索中国知网(CNKI)、万方(Wanfang)、维普(VIP)、中国生物医学文献服务系统(SinoMed)、PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science,获取中医药治疗CR的动物实验文献,应用动物实验系统评价研究中心(Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation,SYRCLE)偏倚风险评估工具和动物研究:体内实验报告(Animal Research:Reporting of in vivo Experiments,ARRIVE)2.0指南分别对纳入研究的方法学质量和报告质量进行评价。初步筛选出文献4086篇,最终纳入符合要求的文献71篇。SYRCLE偏倚风险评估工具评价结果显示,纳入研究主要在选择性偏倚、实施偏倚、测量偏倚、失访偏倚方面存在不足,在动物分组、实验实施及结果评估的随机化、盲法、基线特征、不完整数据报告方面需要改进。ARRIVE 2.0指南关键条目评价结果显示,纳入研究在样本量、纳入和排除标准、随机化、盲法、结局评价、统计方法、实验步骤、结果方面存在高风险。ARRIVE 2.0指南推荐条目评价结果显示,纳入研究在研究背景、伦理声明、动物饲养、诠释/科学内涵、可推广性/转化、实验方案注册、数据获取、利益冲突声明方面存在高风险。目前中医药治疗CR动物实验文献的方法学和报告质量存在诸多不足,建议研究人员参考SYRCLE偏倚风险评估工具和ARRIVE 2.0指南相关条目,进行严谨规范的实验设计、实施和报告,从而提高实验的科学性、真实性和再现性。展开更多
基金supported(in part)by the Entrusted Project of National commission on health and health of China(No.2019099)the National Key Research and Development Plan of China(2016YFC0106300)the Nature Science Foundation of Hubei Province(2019FFB03902)。
文摘Methodological quality(risk of bias)assessment is an important step before study initiation usage.Therefore,accurately judging study type is the first priority,and the choosing proper tool is also important.In this review,we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial(including individual and cluster),animal study,non-randomized interventional studies(including follow-up study,controlled before-and-after study,before-after/pre-post study,uncontrolled longitudinal study,interrupted time series study),cohort study,case-control study,cross-sectional study(including analytical and descriptive),observational case series and case reports,comparative effectiveness research,diagnostic study,health economic evaluation,prediction study(including predictor finding study,prediction model impact study,prognostic prediction model study),qualitative study,outcome measurement instruments(including patient-reported outcome measure development,content validity,structural validity,internal consistency,cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance,reliability,measurement error,criterion validity,hypotheses testing for construct validity,and responsiveness),systematic review and meta-analysis,and clinical practice guideline.The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools.In one word,comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.
文摘通过评价中医药治疗神经根型颈椎病(cervical radiculopathy,CR)动物实验文献的方法学及报告质量,分析其在实验中存在的不足,寻找提高中医药治疗CR动物实验研究质量的方法。计算机检索中国知网(CNKI)、万方(Wanfang)、维普(VIP)、中国生物医学文献服务系统(SinoMed)、PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science,获取中医药治疗CR的动物实验文献,应用动物实验系统评价研究中心(Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation,SYRCLE)偏倚风险评估工具和动物研究:体内实验报告(Animal Research:Reporting of in vivo Experiments,ARRIVE)2.0指南分别对纳入研究的方法学质量和报告质量进行评价。初步筛选出文献4086篇,最终纳入符合要求的文献71篇。SYRCLE偏倚风险评估工具评价结果显示,纳入研究主要在选择性偏倚、实施偏倚、测量偏倚、失访偏倚方面存在不足,在动物分组、实验实施及结果评估的随机化、盲法、基线特征、不完整数据报告方面需要改进。ARRIVE 2.0指南关键条目评价结果显示,纳入研究在样本量、纳入和排除标准、随机化、盲法、结局评价、统计方法、实验步骤、结果方面存在高风险。ARRIVE 2.0指南推荐条目评价结果显示,纳入研究在研究背景、伦理声明、动物饲养、诠释/科学内涵、可推广性/转化、实验方案注册、数据获取、利益冲突声明方面存在高风险。目前中医药治疗CR动物实验文献的方法学和报告质量存在诸多不足,建议研究人员参考SYRCLE偏倚风险评估工具和ARRIVE 2.0指南相关条目,进行严谨规范的实验设计、实施和报告,从而提高实验的科学性、真实性和再现性。
