首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        

《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量评价
引用本文:徐俊峰,安妮,周为文,石新彤,刘银春,梁莉,娜和亚,马继春,葛龙.《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量评价[J].中国循证医学杂志,2013,13(5):605-611.
作者姓名:徐俊峰  安妮  周为文  石新彤  刘银春  梁莉  娜和亚  马继春  葛龙
作者单位:1. 兰州大学循证医学中心 兰州730000;兰州大学第一临床医学院 兰州730000
2. 兰州大学循证医学中心 兰州730000;兰州大学第二临床医学院 兰州730000
3. 兰州大学循证医学中心 兰州730000
基金项目:2011年兰州大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助
摘    要:目的分析《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量及其影响闲索,以期为改辫阳内卜预类系统"价/Meta分析的方法学质量提供依据。方法检索《中国循证医学杂志》从创刊至2011午底所发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析,采用AMSTAR量表对纳入研究的方法学质量进行评价。数据录入采用Excel软什.统计分析采用Meta—Analyst软件。结果共纳入干预类系统评价/Meta分析379篇.其AMSTAR量表平均得分6.15±1.35分(1.5~9.5分):纳入研究的发表年代、是否有基金资助、作者数、作者单位性质和作者单位数仅对AMSTAR艟表部分条日评分有影响。2008年及其以后发表的系统评价/Meta分析的AMSTAR总分高于2008年以11订(P=0.02),但提高程度有限,作者数≥3人的系统评价/Meta分析AMSTAR总分高于≤2人者(P=O.04)。结论《中国循证医学杂志》发表的十预类系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量参差不齐,虽AMSTAR发布后方法学质艟仃所改蛑,但小叫显,需进一步提高办法学质量。

关 键 词:系统评价  Meta分析  报告质量  方法学  AMSTAR量表  中国循证医学杂志

Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses of Intervention Published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
XU Jun-feng,AN Ni,ZHOU Wei-wen,SHI Xin-tong,LIU Yin-chun,LIANG Li NA He-ya,MA Ji-chun,GE Long,TIAN Jin-hui.Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses of Intervention Published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine[J].Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine,2013,13(5):605-611.
Authors:XU Jun-feng  AN Ni  ZHOU Wei-wen  SHI Xin-tong  LIU Yin-chun  LIANG Li NA He-ya  MA Ji-chun  GE Long  TIAN Jin-hui
Institution:1. Evidence-Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; 2. Zhe First Clinical Medicine College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; 3. 1he Second Clinical Medicine College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
Abstract:Objective To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of interven- tion published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, so as to provide evidence for improving the domestic methodological quality. Methods The systematic reviews or meta-analyses of intervention published from 2001 to 2011 were identified by searching the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by AMSTAR scale. The Excel software was used to input data, and Mata-Analyst software was used to conduct statistical analysis. Results A total of 379 studies were included. The average score of AMSTAR was 6.15±1.35 ( 1.5-9.5 point). Just some items of AMSTAR scale were influenced by the following features of included studies: publica- tion date, funded or not, number of author, author's unit, and number of author's unit. The total AMSTAR score of stud- ies published after 2008 was higher than those published before 2008 (P=0.02), but the improvement of methodological quality was limited. While the total AMSTAR score of studies published by 3 or more than 3 authors were higher than those published by 2 or less than 2 authors (P=0.04). Conclusion The methodological quality of the included studies published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics is uneven. Although the methodological quality improves somewhat after the publication of AMSTAR scale, there is no big progress, so it still needs to be further improved.
Keywords:Systematic review  Meta-analysis  Reporting quality  Methodology  AMSTAR scale  Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
本文献已被 维普 万方数据 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号