我国护理期刊系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量评价

目的评价国内护理学领域发表的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量,为护理学领域相关研究提供指导。方法检索中国生物医学文献数据库、中国学术文献网络出版总库和中国科技期刊数据库,检索时间为各数据库建库到2013年8月,收集护理期刊上发表的系统评价及Meta分析,按照OQAQ量表中的10条评价项目对纳入文献逐一进行评价。结果共纳入74篇文献,其方法学质量评分为（2.92±1.63）分,分别有4.1%、8.1%、31.1%、43.2%、29.7%、55.4%、16.2%、37.8%、60.8%的研究充分报告了检索方法、检索足够全面、重复筛选、质量评价标准、数据支持其结论、提供了纳入排除清单、恰当地评价了文献、描述了数据合并方法、对结局数据进行了恰当的合并分析。结论护理学领域的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量整体较低,在检索策略、纳入排除标准、质量评价及数据分析方面表现尤其突出,研究者应进行严格的方法学培训。

The Method Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews/Meta Analysis Published in Nursing Journals

Objective To evaluate the method quality of systematic reviews/ Meta analysis published in nursing journals. Methods We retrieved Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese academic literature online publishing pool and Chinese Scientific Journals Database（the duration was from the beginning to August, 2013）. The systematic reviews and Meta analysis published in nursing journals were included, and were evaluated by 10 items in OQAQ（OxmanGuyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire）. Results A total of 74 literatures were included in the analysis, including 17 systematic reviews and 57 Meta-analyses. It showed that the mean OQAQ score was 2.92 ± 1.63. About 4.1%, 8.1%, 31.1%, 43.2%, 29.7%, 55.4%, 16.2%, 37.8%, and 60.8% studies stated literature research methods used to fi nd evidence; had reasonably comprehensive search; avoided bias in the selection of studies by duplicate screening; reported the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies; concluded the fi ndings by the data or analysis; provided a list of studies; assessed using appropriate criteria; reported the methods used to synthesis the fi ndings; and combined the fi ndings of the included studies appropriately. Conclusions The systematic reviews/ Meta analysis of the overall quality in nursing fi eld is low. The search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment and data analysis is particularly prominent, researchers should conduct rigorous methodological training.