运用雷达图多元评价近10年中药内服治疗溃疡性结肠炎的系统评价/Meta分析文献质量＊

目的 运用雷达图的可视化多元评价中药内服治疗溃疡性结肠炎的系统评价/Meta分析文献的质量,为临床提供更清晰、更科学的决策依据。方法 两位研究员独立地进行计算机检索The Cochrane Library、Embase、PubMed、Elsevier、Web of science、CNKI、VIP、CBM与WanFang,搜集中药内服治疗溃疡性结肠炎的系统评价/Meta分析,检索时限为2010年1月至2020年6月,并进行资料提取,从发表年份、同质性、研究类型、发表风险偏倚、AMSTAR 2以及PRISMA六个方面对纳入文献进行多元评价。使用GRADE工具对纳入研究的结局指标进行质量分级评估。结果 本研究最终纳入13篇系统评价/Meta分析,根据多元评价结果,所有文献秩数平均分为8.82分,其中方法学质量和报告学质量偏低是影响文献质量的主要原因,文献年份、研究类型与发表偏倚情况为文献质量短板的次要来源。GRADE证据显示16个为高质量,12个为中质量,15个为低质量,7个为极低质量。结论 中药内服治疗溃疡性结肠炎的系统评价/Meta分析质量参差不齐,且整体偏低,需从设计项目方案入手,进一步提高质量为临床决策提供更可靠的证据。

Analysis of the Literature Quality of Systematic Evaluation/Meta-analysis of Oral Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis Based on Radar Chart in Recent Ten Years

Objective To visually evaluate the quality of the systematic review/Meta analysis literature of the oral medicinal herbs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis by the use of the radar chart, so as to provide clearer and more scientific decision-making basis for the clinic.Methods Two researchers independently conducted computer retrieval of The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Elsevier, Web of science, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and WanFang, and collected systematic reviews/Meta analysis of oral medicinal herbs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. The search time limit was from January 2010 to July 2020. In addition, data extraction was carried out, and the included literature was evaluated in six aspects: publication year, homogeneity, research type, publication risk bias, AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA. Use GRADE tools to evaluate the quality of the outcome indicators included in the study.Results This study finally included 13 systematic reviews/Meta analysis. According to the multi-evaluation results, the average rank of all documents was 8.78 points. Among them, the low methodological quality and reporting quality were the main reasons affecting the quality of the literature. The year of the literature, and the type of research and publication bias were the secondary sources of literature quality shortcomings. GRADE evidence showed that 16 were high quality, 12 were medium quality, 15 were low quality, and 7 were very low quality.Conclusion The quality of systematic reviews/Meta analysis for the treatment of ulcerative colitis by oral medicinal herbs is uneven, and the overall quality is low. It is necessary to start with the design of the project plan to further improve the quality to provide more reliable evidence for clinical decision-making.