Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in nursing field in China

The aim of this paper was to evaluate reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in the nursing field in China. Over the last decade, evidence‐based nursing has been gradually known and accepted by nurses in China, and the number of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses of nursing flied has steadily increased, but the quality of these reviews is unsatisfactory. The Chinese Journal Full‐Text Database, the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database and the Wanfang Database were searched for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in the nursing field, from inception through December 2011. The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively. A total of 63 systematic reviews or meta‐analyses were identified. The deficiencies of methodological quality were mainly in literature searches, heterogeneity handling, recognition and assessment of publication bias. In addition, the deficiencies of reporting characteristics were reflected in incomplete reporting of literature search, quality assessment, risk of bias and results. Focusing on improving the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in the nursing field in China is urgently needed.     

国内护理领域系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告质量评价

目的评价国内护理领域系统评价/Meta分析方法学和报告质量,以期规范研究过程和报告方法。方法计算机检索CNKI,查找涉及护理领域的所有系统评价/Meta分析文献,检索时限从建库至2011年12月。由2位评价者独立筛查文献,并采用AMSTAR和PRISMA评价量表对纳入文献的方法学与报告质量进行评价并交叉核对,如遇分歧讨论解决。结果共纳入63篇文献,其中系统评价21篇,Meta分析42篇,分别发表在《护理研究》、《中华护理杂志》、《中国循证医学杂志》等13种期刊上。纳入文献中方法学质量存在的主要问题有:文献检索不够全面、对异质性产生的原因未进行综合分析和处理、未重视发表偏倚的识别。报告质量存在的主要问题表现在检索策略的报告不规范、纳入研究质量和偏倚风险报道不全面和研究结果表述不全(部分缺乏森林图、综合结果的估计值和可信区间、异质性检验结果)。结论目前国内护理领域系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量及报告质量还存在不同程度的问题,尚需进一步提高方法学水平和规范报告质量。     

2015-2019年我国护理核心期刊中系统评价类研究的范围综述

目的:描述我国护理核心期刊2015-2019年发表系统评价类研究的种类、研究方法和文献报告进展。方法:使用JBI范围综述方法对文献进行描述性分析。结果:共纳入740篇文献,包括量性研究系统评价、质性研究系统评价、系统评价再评价和范围综述。68.2%的文献完全呈现了结构化研究问题。平均每篇文献检索证据资源(7.29±2.15)个。检索频率最高的中英文证据资源分别是CNKI(95.5%)和PubMed/Medline(92.8%)。只有19.1%检索了灰色文献。Cochrane风险偏倚评估工具和JBI系列工具在质量评价工具中的使用频率最高。在论文撰写中有较多信息缺失或记录不详。结论:我国护理核心期刊上发表的系统评价类研究数量稳步增加,研究方法更加丰富。但是研究的方法学质量和报告学质量亟需提高,以提高系统评价证据质量,为循证护理事业发展助力。     

Epidemiology,methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of nursing interventions published in China

The importance of systematic reviews (SRs) of nursing interventions' impact on practice makes their methodological quality and reporting characteristics especially important as it directly influence their utility for clinicians, patients and policy makers.The study aims to assess the methodological quality and reporting characteristics of SRs of nursing interventions in Chinese nursing journals. Three Chinese databases were searched for SRs of nursing interventions from inception to October 2011. The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) statements were used to assess methodological quality and reporting characteristics. Seventy‐four SRs were included. The proportion of SRs complying with AMSTAR checklist items ranged from 0% to 82.4%. No SRs reported an ‘a priori’ design or conflict of interest. Only four items were found to be reported in more than 50% of the SRs: a list of included and excluded studies, the scientific quality of included studies, the appropriate use of methods to combine findings, and formulating conclusions appropriately. The majority of SRs of nursing interventions in China had major methodological and reporting flaws that limited their value to guide decisions. Chinese authors and journals should adopt and keep up with the AMSTAR and PRISMA statements to improve the quality of SRs in this field.     

近5年我国护理领域干预性研究系统评价的方法学质量分析

目的:评价近5年我国护理核心期刊发表的干预性研究系统评价的方法学质量,为研究者及审稿人规范制作及审阅系统评价提供参考。方法:在中国知网和万方数据库中,检索2015-2019年发表在我国护理核心期刊的干预性研究系统评价,描述研究涉及的主题,并采用新版系统评价方法学质量评价工具(AMSTAR 2)进行评价。结果:共纳入文献507篇,其中80.9%可信度为极低级。主要问题包括未提及前期研究方案(98.8%)、发表偏倚分析与讨论不充分(71.4%)、文献检索策略不全面(55.8%)、PICO各要素界定不具体(41.4%)等。结论:纳入的系统评价方法学质量总体偏低,亟待通过研究者和审稿人共同努力,提升系统评价计划书的注册、检索策略的全面性和透明性、发表偏倚的考虑等方面的质量,为实践者提供更为可靠的决策依据。     

Chinese medicine formulas for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUNDNonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) affects more than one-quarter of the global population. Due to the lack of approved chemical agents, many patients seek treatment from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulas. A variety of systematic reviews have been published regarding the effectiveness and safety of TCM formulas for NAFLD.AIMTo critically appraise available systematic reviews and sort out the high-quality evidence on TCM formulas for the management of NAFLD.METHODSSeven databases were systematically searched from their inception to 28 February 2020. The search terms included “non-alcoholic fatty liver disease,” “Chinese medicines,” “systematic review,” and their synonyms. Systematic reviews involving TCM formulas alone or in combination with conventional medications were included. The methodological quality and risk of bias of eligible systematic reviews were evaluated by using A Measure Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) and Risk of Bias in Systematic Review (ROBIS). The quality of outcomes was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.RESULTSSeven systematic reviews were ultimately included. All systematic reviews were conducted based on randomized controlled trials and published in the last decade. According to the AMSTAR 2 tool, one systematic review was judged as having a moderate confidence level, whereas the other studies were rated as having a low or extremely low level of confidence. The ROBIS tool showed that the included systematic reviews all had a high risk of bias due to insufficient consideration of identified concerns. According to the GRADE system, only two outcomes were determined as high quality; namely, TCM formulas with the HuoXueHuaYu principle were better than conventional medications in ultrasound improvement, and TCM formulas were superior to antioxidants in alanine aminotransferase normalization. Other outcomes were downgraded to lower levels, mainly because of heterogeneity among studies, not meeting optimal information sample size, and inclusion of excessive numbers of small sample studies. Nevertheless, the evidence quality of extracted outcomes should be further downgraded when applying to clinical practice due to indirectness.CONCLUSIONThe quality of available systematic reviews was not satisfactory. Researchers should avoid repeatedly conducting systematic reviews in this area and focus on designing rigorous randomized controlled trials to support TCM formula applications.     

脑胶质瘤干预类系统评价/Meta分析的方法学和报告质量评价

目的系统评价全世界脑胶质瘤干预类系统评价/Meta分析（SR/MA）的方法学和报告质量。方法计算机检索Pub Med、EMbase、h e Cochrane Library、CNKI、CBM等数据库,纳入脑胶质瘤干预类SR/MA,检索时限截至2013年7月。由2位研究者独立筛选文献,而后采用AMSTAR和PRISMA清单对纳入研究的方法学与报告质量进行评价与分析。结果共纳入51个SR/MA。结果显示：纳入研究中方法学质量存在的主要问题有无研究设计方案、检索策略不全面、纳入研究出版物形式局限、未评价文章发表偏倚及未说明相关利益冲突;纳入研究的报告质量存在的主要问题是检索策略的报告不规范、纳入研究质量和偏倚风险报道不全面和研究结果表述不全（部分缺乏森林图、综合结果的估计值和可信区间、异质性检验结果）。结论脑胶质瘤干预类SR/MA的方法学质量和报告质量还存在不同程度的问题,该领域研究者应提高SR/MA制作的科学性和规范性,并遵循PRISMA进行报告。     

Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions published in chinese journals

Abstract Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture have become increasingly popular in China in recent years and have been published in large numbers. This review provides the first examination of epidemiological characteristics of these SRs as well as compliance with the PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. Objectives: The study objectives were to examine epidemiological and reporting characteristics as well as methodological quality of SRs of acupuncture published in Chinese journals. Methods: Four (4) Chinese databases were searched (CBM, CSJD, CJFD, and Wanfang Database) for SRs of Traditional Chinese Medicine, from January 1978 through to December 2010. Data were extracted into Excel spreadsheets. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively. Results: A total of 88 SRs were identified; none of the reviews had been updated. Less than one third (27.3%) were written by clinicians and one third (35.2%) were reported in specialty journals. The impact factor of 53.4% of the journals published was 0. Information retrieval was not comprehensive in more than half (59.1%) of the reviews. Less than half (36.4%) reported assessing for publication bias. Though 97.7% of the reviews used the term "systematic review" or "meta-analysis" in the title, no reviews reported a protocol and none were updated even after they had been published after 2 or more years. Conclusions: Although many SRs of acupuncture interventions have been published in Chinese journals, the reporting quality is troubling. Thus, the most urgent strategy is to focus on increasing the standard of SRs of acupuncture interventions, rather than continuing to publish them in great quantity.     

How relevant is the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to nursing care?

Barriers obstructing evidence‐based nursing have been explored in many countries. Lack of resources and evidence has been noted as one of these barriers. We aimed to identify nursing care‐related systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 until 2009. Using a broad search strategy we identified titles of Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols that focused on nursing care. The abstract of each title was examined and predetermined data were collected and analysed. 1249 titles out of a possible 6244 records were identified as being relevant to nursing care. Most of them focused on newborn and adult populations and related to comparing one intervention with another, and management strategies. The most common nursing specialties represented were internal medicine (34%) and mother and child care (25%). Twenty one percent of reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews are of direct interest to those involved in nursing care however their relevance was not always obvious.     

《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价／Meta分析报告质量评价

目的评价《中国循证医学杂志》公开发表的干预类系统评价／Meta分析的报告质量,并分析其影响因素。方法对《中国循证医学杂志》从创刊至2011年底所发表的干预类系统评价／Meta分析进行检索。采用PRISMA清单评价和分析所有纳入文献,按照PRISMA清单各条目的符合程度由高到低分别评为“1分”、“0．5分”、“0分”。将所获数据录入Excle软件,并使用Meta—Analyst软件进行统计分析。结果共纳入干预类系统评价／Meta分析379篇,发表数量总体呈逐年上升之势。PRISMA清单平均评分19．97±3．15分（8．5-26分）。其中25篇（6．60％）评分为21—27分,认为报告相对完全;226篇（59．63％）评分为15～21分,认为报告存在缺陷;128篇（33．77％）评分为15分以下,认为有严重的信息缺失。分层分析结果显示：PRISMA的发布、有基金资助可以提高系统评价／Meta分析的报告质量（P〈0．05）;作者数≥3人、作者单位性质为大学和单位数≥2个有改善系统评价／Meta分析报告质量的趋势,但影响不具统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论《中国循证医学杂志》所发表的干预类系统评价／Meta分析的报告质量有待提高,影响报告质量的主要因素有方案和注册、研究间偏倚、其他分析以及资金支持等,应加以重视。合理利用PRISMA将有助于提升系统评价／Meta分析的报告质量。     

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

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。     

Tai Chi and Parkinson’s disease (PD): A systematic overview of the scientific quality of the past systematic reviews

ObjectivesThe aim of the current study was to assess the scientific quality of the past systematic reviews regarding the application of Tai Chi in the management of Parkinson’s disease (PD) using a systematic overview.MethodsThe search of PubMed and PsycInfo in February 2018 identified k=10 relevant systematic reviews published in 2008–2017 with terms PD, Tai Chi, and review in titles or abstracts. The quality of reviews was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the quality of meta-analytic procedures was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.ResultsThe k=10 systematic reviews assessed various outcomes of Tai Chi in PD using a qualitative (k = 4) or a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis; k = 6) of data from up to 14 primary studies published in English. The review strengths were the comprehensive search for literature, data coding, and data quality assessment. The review limitations were the high overlap in the primary data and the lack of either the review protocol, the list of excluded studies or the conflict of interest statement in the primary studies. The critical problems were that the qualitative data synthesis relied on the statistical significance of results in the primary studies with small sample sizes and that the computational details of meta-analysis were inadequately reported.ConclusionsThe past systematic reviews suggest that Tai Chi is a promising complementary treatment for PD. However, the quality of such past reviews is limited. Future systematic reviews can be improved by adequately reporting the methodological details and adhering to the guidelines for conducting such reviews. The clinical relevance of Tai Chi in terms of the magnitude and the longer-term durability of its outcomes should be tested in future RCTs with larger sample sizes.     

Calidad de las revisiones sistemáticas de COVID-19 en personas con diabetes: una revisión sistemática

ObjectiveTo investigate the methodological quality of published systematic reviews of factors associated with COVID-19 in people with diabetes.MethodSystematic review with registration protocol in PROSPERO, under the number CRD42020222418. Searches were carried out from October to November 2020 in the databases of the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, Embase and Cochrane Library, in addition to searching the reference list of the selected studies. Systematic review studies with or without meta-analysis and without date and language restrictions were included. Data were extracted in a standardized way and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scale.ResultsTwelve reviews, published between 2020 and 2021, with a predominance of the English language, systematic reviews of observational studies with meta-analysis with a sample ranging from 6 to 83 studies, were included. Regarding financing, most of the study reported did not receive this type of support. Regarding to the assessment of the methodological quality of the studies, 3 were of moderate quality, 5 were classified as low quality and 3 with critically low quality.ConclusionsThe analyzed articles presented a bias in the preparation of reports on their studies, suggesting the need to use mechanisms to improve adherence to the established reporting guidelines and methodological evaluation tools.     

Methodology and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine

CONTEXT: Good systematic reviews/meta-analyses are important sources of information for clinicians, patients, government officials, and other decision makers. Now, there is an increasing number of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Thus, it is necessary to assess the quality of these reviews. OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodology and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of TCM published in paper-based journals in China. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed to identify the maximum possible number of reviews on the prevention and cure researches in TCM. Two assessors (Junhua and Hongcai) independently extracted data and put them into a Microsoft Access database for analysis. Two assessment tools were used: (1) the Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ); and (2) the Quality of Reporting of Meta analysis (QUOROM). RESULTS: One hundred and seven papers (107) were identified: 71 reviews called "systematic reviews" and 36 called "meta-analyses." More than half of all the reviews had methodological and reporting flaws that could have influenced the reviews' validity. The deficiencies were mainly in literature searches, characteristics of included and excluded studies reported, primary trials' quality assessment, and data merging. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology and reporting quality are poor in both systematic reviews and meta-analysis reviews of TCM published in paper-based journals in China. We should respect the need for high-quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and do these according to specification.     

2006～2011年我国中医药护理临床试验的方法学质量评价

目的评价近6年来我国中医药护理临床试验的方法学质量。方法计算机检索CNKI、VIP、WanFang Data和CBM disc数据库中发表的中医药护理的临床试验文献,检索时限为2006年1月～2011年9月。同时手检2010年1月至2011年9月国内主要护理期刊,采用Cochrane偏倚风险评估表进行临床试验文献质量评估。结果共纳入临床对照试验854篇,其中随机对照试验706篇(82.7%),半随机对照试验108篇(12.6%),非随机对照试验40篇(4.7%)。方法学质量分析显示:91.8%的纳入研究(784篇)均描述了组间基线资料可比性,并有明确的诊断标准(498篇,58.3%)和排除标准(178篇,20.8%);97.3%的纳入研究(831篇)统计方法运用正确。但只有55篇(6.4%)报告了随机序列的产生方法;10篇(1.2%)阐述随机序列隐匿方法;22篇(2.6%)采用了盲法;98篇(11.5%)报告进行了随访,93篇(10.9%)报告了安全性,20篇(2.3%)报告了失访及退出情况,2篇进行了意向性分析;所有研究均未报告研究方案,无法判断是否存在选择性报告偏倚,但21篇(2.5%)试验结果中的结局指标明显少于方法中的结局指标数,可判断为存在偏倚。符合Cochrane低风险标准2条及以上的研究共81篇,其中2009年10篇(12.3%)、2010年26篇(32.1%)、2011年前9个月27篇(33.3%),呈上升趋势。结论按Cochrane偏倚风险评估标准,近6年来,中医药护理临床试验研究总体质量不高,均存在不同程度的缺陷,但研究质量有逐年增高的趋势。     

A review of quality assessment of the methodology used in guidelines and systematic reviews on oral mucositis

Aims and objectives. The objective of this study was to identify and to assess the quality of evidence‐based guidelines and systematic reviews we used in the case of oral mucositis, to apply general quality criteria for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis in patients receiving chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both. Design. Systematic review. Methods. Literature searches were carried out in several electronic databases and websites. Publications were included if they concerned oral mucositis involving adults treated for cancer and had been published after 1 January 2000. As far as systematic reviews were concerned, the article had to report a search strategy, if the search was minimally conducted in the database PubMed or Medline and the articles included in the review were subjected to some kind of methodological assessment. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Education (AGREE) instrument was used to assess the quality of the guidelines and the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) was used for the quality of systematic reviews. Results. Thirty‐one articles met the inclusion criteria of which 11 were guidelines and 20 were systematic reviews. Nine of the 11 guidelines did not explicitly describe how they identified, selected and summarised the available evidence. Reviews suffered from lack of clarity, for instance, in performing a thorough literature search. The quality varied among the different guidelines and reviews. Conclusion. Most guidelines and systematic reviews had serious methodological flaws. Relevance to clinical practice. There is a need to improve the methodological quality of guidelines and systematic reviews for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis if they are to be used in clinical practice.     

中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价/Meta分析现状调查

目的调查国内中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价/Meta分析文献的质量。方法电子检索1995年1月到2006年12月的CNKI和CBM,筛选中医药的系统评价、Meta分析全文,提取有关中医特色、治疗和对照干预措施的详细资料进行分析评价,并调查文献是否采用QUOROM声明报道结果。结果共纳入文献111篇,其中预防、不良反应、危险因素及先兆症各1篇,理化指标2篇,疗效及安全性评价106篇。涉及42个病种,报道脑血管疾病的文献41篇。干预措施为中医药者25篇,针灸者12篇。对照组:未设对照者2篇;未描述对照组干预措施者15篇;阳性药物对照50篇(其中西药26篇,中药12篇,中药 西药12篇);空白对照14篇;基础对照17篇;假针灸、穴位注射等4篇;安慰剂对照5篇;空白对照14篇及“互为对照”4篇。对照组和部分研究治疗组的干预措施种类均多。每篇文献纳入RCT1～35篇不等,其中24个研究纳入CCT。111篇文献在Cochrane协作网注册者仅14篇。有16篇未对纳入RCT进行质量评价,有22篇仅对纳入RCT进行简单不规范的评价。无一篇文献采用QUOROM声明报道结果。结论应重视提高中医药系统评价的质量。根据中医药特点,选题范围不宜过宽,药物选择不宜过多,注意中药的目标适应病证,应重视对干预措施的评价。系统评价应注意由临床工作者和方法学研究者共同完成,才能做出质量高又具中医特色的评价。     

偏倚风险评估工具在针刺Cochrane系统评价中的应用

目的客观评价偏倚风险评估工具在针刺Cochrane系统评价(CSR)的应用情况。方法全面检索Cochrane系统评价数据库(2011年第12期),查找有关针刺的CSR。由2位研究者根据纳入与排除标准独立筛选文献、提取资料,然后进行统计分析。结果共纳入41个CSR。其中有19个为更新的系统评价,33个发表于2009~2011年间;60.98%报告采用了Cochrane Handbook评估纳入研究偏倚风险/方法学质量;所有研究均评价了随机序列、分配隐藏及盲法信息,但未完整报告施盲对象;54.55%的研究分别报告了选择性报告偏倚和其他偏倚来源。结论大多数CSR选择使用Cochrane Handbook推荐的偏倚风险评估工具评估纳入研究的偏倚风险,但依然有评估条目报告不完整的问题存在。     

Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis: an Overview of Systematic Reviews

This review critically evaluates the literature on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. Design: Electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant systematic reviews of the effectiveness of CAM in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis published between January 2010 and January 2011. Reviews were defined as systematic if they included explicit and repeatable inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies. Their methodological quality was assessed using the Oxman criteria for systematic reviews. Results: Five systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. They all arrived at cautious conclusions. Four reviews were of high quality and one was burdened with high risk of bias. The evidence to support the effectiveness of CAM as a treatment option for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis is ambiguous.     

胰腺癌治疗的Cochrane系统评价证据

目的评价胰腺癌治疗的Cochrane系统评价证据,以及纳入系统评价的临床随机对照试验（RCT）的方法学质量。方法检索Cochrane Library数据库（2009年第4期）中有关胰腺癌治疗的系统评价,并运用RewMan5.0.21对所纳入研究的偏倚进行评估。结果共检索到胆道支架置入术姑息治疗梗阻型胰腺癌的系统评价、放化疗治疗不能手术的进展期胰腺癌的系统评价共2篇系统评价,共纳入79个RCT。依照Cochrane协作网推荐的质量评价方法,对所纳入RCT的偏倚进行评估,表明均存在不同程度的偏倚,方法学质量普遍较低。结论 Cochrane系统评价是公认的最高质量的研究证据,但目前缺少足够强度的证据来支持胆道支架置入术姑息治疗梗阻型胰腺癌的疗效。其他治疗手段的疗效如胰腺癌围手术期的营养支持治疗等还需要通过进一步的完成系统评价来评估。建议推行临床试验透明化,实施临床试验注册制度以及按照CONSORT声明严格规范RCT的报告,以便于总结胰腺癌治疗的临床证据。