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。     

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。     

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。     

国内动物实验系统评价/Meta分析研究的现状分析

目的对国内发表的动物实验系统评价的研究现状及存在的问题进行全面分析,为今后的研究提供参考依据。方法计算机检索CNKI和Wan Fang Data数据库,纳入国内发表的动物实验系统评价/Meta分析研究,不限制动物种属,检索时限均为建库截至2014年3月。由两位研究者按纳入与排除标准筛选文献、提取资料,对纳入研究的特征进行描述性分析。结果最终纳入18篇动物实验的系统评价,发表于13种期刊上,其中14篇(77.8%)被引次数为零,8篇(44.4%)未对纳入研究的类型进行说明。在方法学上,11篇(61.1%)未对纳入研究的质量和发表偏倚进行评价,4篇(22.2%)仅检索了中文数据库,15篇(83.3%)未提供文献筛选流程图。结论国内发表的动物实验系统评价数量少,被引率低,在方法学上存在较多问题。因此,有必要通过普及系统评价知识、加强方法学培训及在相关期刊"稿约"中尽早引入动物实验系统评价报告规范,来提高动物实验系统评价的方法和报告质量,促进其成果的转化和利用。     

中文护理专业病例对照研究质量的评价

目的 对发表在护理核心期刊、护理非核心期刊和综合性医学期刊上的中文护理专业病例对照研究文献的方法学质量和报告质量进行系统评价.方法 计算机检索中文护理专业病例对照研究的文献,并采用Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)和Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology(STROBE)量表对文献进行方法学和报告质量评价.结果 检索得到3 579篇文献,根据纳入与排除标准共纳入94篇文献;纳入文献的NOS量表评分为(4.86±1.33)分,STROBE量表评分为(16.11±2.41)分;发表在护理核心期刊上、护理非核心期刊上和综合性医学期刊上的病例对照研究的方法学质量和报告质量比较差异无统计学意义.结论 1992年至2013年,在护理核心期刊、护理非核心期刊及综合医学期刊上发表的中文护理专业病例对照研究文献数量呈逐年增长趋势,且文献涉及的研究领域广泛.但这些研究在方法学和报告质量方面存在着不同程度的缺陷.     

综合性护理干预预防全髋关节置换术后假体脱位效果META分析

目的:系统评价综合性护理干预在预防全髋关节置换术后假体脱位效果.方法:计算机全面检索综合性护理干预在老年全髋关节置换术的应用的随机对照试验的中文文献,检索日期截止至2015年12月21日,由2位研究者独立对纳入研究进行方法学质量评价,并进行资料提取,采用Rev Man4.2软件进行Meta分析.结果:Meta分析结果显示综合性护理干预组的假体脱位率与常规护理组相比,合并OR=0.13,95％CI为[0.04 0.40],对总体效应进行假设检验得Z值为3.54,P=0.0004,两者差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);“漏斗图”图形显示不存在发表性偏倚;结论:现有临床证据表明综合性护理干预可有效预防关节脱位现象.但由于纳入研究质量所限,尚需开展更多高质量的研究进一步分析.     

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。     

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。     

2022年我国《循证护理》杂志发表的系统评价与Meta分析文献质量评价

目的:利用AMSTAR-2评价2022年我国《循证护理》杂志发表的系统评价/Meta分析(SR/MA)文献方法学质量,并探讨影响其方法学质量的因素。方法:计算机检索万方数据库、中国知网、维普数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库中《循证护理》杂志2022年1月1日—2022年12月31日发表的干预类随机对照研究(RCT)的系统评价和Meta分析,采用AMSTAR-2对纳入文献的方法学质量进行评价。结果:共纳入干预类RCT的系统评价和Meta分析56篇,其AMSTAR-2总分为8.5～12.0(10.47±0.80)分。作者≤2人与作者≥3人(t=-0.321)、作者单位数量为1个与≥2个(t=0.093)、有无基金资助(t=1.070)、不同作者单位性质(F=0.073)的文献AMSTAR-2总评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。56篇文献主要存在的问题是前期方案设计与注册、是否使用了全面的检索策略、任何潜在的利益冲突及开展系统评价所接受的任何资助等。结论:《循证护理》杂志发表的干预类RCT的系统评价和Meta分析方法学质量参差不齐,仍需进一步提高方法学报告水平,以促进护理循...     

2018年我国护理期刊刊载Meta分析与系统评价文献规范化报告质量分析

[目的]对我国护理期刊2018年发表的Meta分析与系统评价文献进行规范性报告分析。[方法]依据Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials(CONSORT)声明、A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews(AMSTAR)和Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis(PRISMA)声明的相关内容和条目制定评价标准,对2018年我国护理期刊刊载Meta分析与系统评价文献的方法和结果部分的报告质量进行评价,方法部分包括方案与注册、检索策略、信息来源、检索词、检索时间、纳入标准、排除标准、文献筛选方法、数据提取方法、质量评价方法、统计学方法、概括效应指标、异质性检验方法、研究偏倚、其他分析,结果部分包括检索流程、文献选择、文献基本特征、文献质量评价结果、结果分析(单个研究的结果与结果的综合)、偏倚分析(研究内部偏倚与研究间偏倚)、其他分析。[结果]初步检索出相关文献910篇,导入NoteExpress进行查重后余325篇,阅读题目和摘要后进行初筛,仔细阅读每篇文献后,最终获取259篇文献。其中Meta分析238篇,质性研究的系统评价9篇,系统评价再评价4篇,其他8篇。238篇Meta分析中方法部分大多数文献均报告了数据库来源、纳入标准、排除标准、纳入文献的质量评价方法、统计学方法,但是没有发现文献报告方案注册情况,仅130篇文献报告了具体检索策略,181篇随机对照实验采用了Cochrane协作网制定的风险偏倚评估工具,18篇非随机对照试验采用了纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS);结果部分大部分文献均报告了纳入文献的基本特征、质量评价结果与Meta分析结果,138篇文献报告了筛选流程图,质量评价结果中仅140篇文献对纳入文献进行定级,82篇文献报告了偏倚情况。[结论]国内护理领域系统评价的文献报告较规范,方法和结果部分的关键项目均有报告,但在文献检索策略、纳入研究的质量评价与偏倚分析、结果部分的异质性分析等方面仍然不够规范。     

Epidemiology characteristics,reporting characteristics,and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on traditional Chinese medicine nursing interventions published in Chinese journals

To evaluate the epidemiological characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the traditional Chinese medicine nursing field published in Chinese journals. The number of systematic reviews in the traditional Chinese medicine nursing field has increased, but their epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics have not been assessed completely. We generated an overview of reviews using a narrative approach. Four Chinese databases were searched for systematic reviews from inception to December 2015. The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklists were adopted to evaluate reporting and methodological quality, respectively. A total of 73 eligible systematic reviews, published from 2005 to 2015, were included. The deficiencies in reporting characteristics mainly lay in the lack of structured abstract or protocol, incomplete reporting of search strategies, study selection, and risk of bias. The deficiencies in methodological quality were reflected in the lack of a priori design and conflict of interest, incomplete literature searches, and assessment of publication bias. The quality of the evaluated reviews was unsatisfactory; attention should be paid to the improvement of reporting and methodological quality in the conduct of systematic reviews.     

中国科学引文数据库收录期刊的系统评价/Meta分析文献方法学质量评价

  目的  评价中国科学引文数据库(Chinese Science Citation Database,CSCD)收录期刊2020年发表的系统评价/Meta分析(systematic review/meta analysis,SR/MA)文献的方法学质量,旨在为我国研究人员制作SR/MA提供建议,为编辑和审稿专家审阅SR/MA提供参考。  方法  以CSCD收录的中华医学会杂志社系列期刊为样本形成期刊列表。4名研究人员两两分组独立进行手动检索,纳入期刊发表于2020年的SR/MA文献,1名研究人员在中国知网进行补充检索。研究人员两两分组对纳入的研究进行独立筛选和信息提取,使用AMSTAR 2(A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2,AMSTAR 2)评价工具进行方法学质量评价并对评价结果进行统计学分析。  结果  共79本中华医学会杂志社系列期刊被CSCD收录,其中46本期刊在2020年发表SR/MA文献,按照纳入和排除标准进行筛选,共纳入126篇SR/MA文献。AMSTAR 2评价结果显示,SR/MA文献的平均得分为(10.38±1.91)分;9个条目的符合/部分符合比例在70%以上;SR/MA至少符合/部分符合5个AMSTAR 2条目,最多符合/部分符合12个条目;关键条目未调整前超过90%的SR/MA可信度分级为“极低”,结合国内实际情况调整关键条目后,分别有约40%的SR/MA可信度分级为“中”和“低”;分层分析结果显示,是否使用GRADE分级、是否遵循PRISMA声明、作者数量是否＞5、发表语种是否不同、纳入研究类型是否包括随机对照试验和是否报告资金资助均不是SR/MA方法学质量的影响因素。  结论  CSCD收录期刊2020年发表的SR/MA文献方法学质量仍有待提高,未来应重点关注SR/MA的注册、检索、纳入和排除标准及资金资助等问题,以切实提高SR/MA的方法学质量。     

The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal

OBJECTIVE: To independently appraise the methodological quality of a sample of reports of meta-analyses that address critical care topics in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews compared with the quality of reports published in regular journals, using a validated assessment instrument, the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ). DATA SOURCE: Studies were selected from a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1994 to 2003, using multiple search terms for critical care and sensitive filters to identify meta-analyses. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently selected meta-analyses that addressed topics pertinent to critical care medicine. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted the data. The proportion of reports that met each component of the OQAQ was determined, as was the overall quality score. Meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were compared with those published in regular journals. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 36 reports of meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and 103 reports of meta-analyses published in regular journals; 11 of these were reports of Cochrane reviews. The meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were more likely to fulfill most components of the OQAQ. The median overall OQAQ scores indicated significant methodological problems in the reports regardless of the source of publication, although the reports in the Cochrane database scored higher than those in regular journals (five compared with two, p<.001). Major methodological flaws, notably failure to appropriately refer to the validity of included studies, were found in meta-analyses in both the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and regular journals (44.4% and 79.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of reports of meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews is superior to the quality of reports of meta-analyses published in regular journals, there is significant room for improvement. Clinicians should critically appraise all reports of meta-analyses before considering the results, regardless of the source of publication.     

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.     

Acupuncture for treatment of insomnia: An overview of systematic reviews

PurposeTo evaluate the reliability of the methodological quality and outcome measures of systematic review (SR) /meta-analysis (MA) of acupuncture for insomnia.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search for SRs with MAs in seven international and Chinese databases. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews according to the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of evidence.ResultsThirty-four reviews were included. The AMSTAR-2 score showed that most of the included studies were of low methodological quality and included only two high-quality literatures. The lowest score were the item 10 (all the studies didn't report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review), item 7(32 studies didn't provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions) and item 3 (27 studies didn't explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review).ConclusionMost of the reviews included suggested that the acupuncture group was more effective than the control group in the treatment of insomnia, but the methodological quality of most of the studies and the quality of evidence were low.     

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.     

我国质性研究系统评价和Meta整合论文的质量评价

目的:对我国质性研究的系统评价和Meta整合论文进行方法学和报告学质量评价。方法:以"质性研究/定性研究AND(系统评价/系统综述OR Meta整合)"为检索词,检索从2014年至2020年2月在我国Sinomed、中国知网、万方数据库和维普数据库公开发表的质性研究的系统评价和Meta整合论文,对其进行选题分析,并进一步采用CERQual规范和ENTREQ声明进行方法学质量和报告学质量评价。结果:共纳入质性研究系统评价和Meta分析论文48篇,分析发现近3年来Meta整合论文数量增加迅速,选题涵盖人文关怀的各类主题;论文的方法学质量在严谨性分析、整合结果的相关性、一致性、以及饱和性尚存在一定不足;报告学质量总体较好,但在提出PICo问题、检索策略、分析纳入研究质量对结果的影响,呈现"整合结果 -类别-提取的结果"逻辑框架图和提出进一步的研究建议等几个方面尚需要进一步提升。结论:质性研究的系统评价和Meta整合为深入开展以患者为中心的照护提供有意义的证据,应设计和开展有针对性的培训项目,提高我国质性研究系统评价和Meta整合的质量和整体水平。