超声内镜诊断类系统评价/meta分析现状

目的：分析当前国内外发表的超声内镜诊断类系统评价(SRs)/Meta分析(MAs)的研究现状。方法：计算机检索PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science,中国生物医学文献数据库，中国期刊全文数据库，万方数据库，中文科技期刊数据库，检索时间均为建库至2013年7月。根据纳入排除标准收集有关超声内镜诊断的SRs/MAs，两位评价员分别进行文献筛选，并按照预先设计的资料提取表进行资料提取，包括发表时间、发表杂志、作者机构及数量、疾病分类、图表使用、参考文献、被引用、质量评价工具等，同时对中英文对图表使用、参考文献、被引用分别进行比较。结果：共纳入SRs/MAs72篇，发表数量从1998年的1篇增加至2012年的16篇，涉及病种以消化系统疾病居首(75.0%)，其次为呼吸系统(8.3%)；90.3%的SRs/MAs以英文形式发表，其余以中文形式发表；87.5%的SRs/MAs被SCI收录；93.1%的SRs/MAs作者来源自同一个国家，其中第一作者主要分布于中国(31.9%)和美国(30.6%)，国际合作研究仅5篇；77.8%的SRs/MAs由一个机构(如医院、大学、研究所)完成。在图表使用类型方面，以纳入研究特征表(84.7%)、森林图(72.2%)居多。英文SRs/MAs参考文献数量约为中文的2.5倍，且近五年的数量较高。中英文SRs/MAs被引用率平均仅36.3次。54.2%的SRs/MAs使用Cochrane Handbook5.1推荐的QUADAS工具评价原始研究质量，但仍有38.9%的研究未报告质量评价的方法。所有纳入中文SRs/MAs均未报告基金资助信息。结论：超声内镜诊断类系统评价/Meta分析研究的数量呈逐年增长趋势，国内外的研究者需加强不同国家不同研究机构间的合作及方法学人员的参与；鼓励使用诊断类质量评价QUADAS工具；严格按照PRISMA报告标准使用流程图及漏斗图。

Analysis of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis

Objective To analyze the status of systematic review(SRs)/meta-analyses(MAs) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) diagnosis. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database from the starting to July, 2013 for related publications. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, SRs/MAs of EUS for diagnosis were collected. Articles were screened by two reviewers and the process of extraction was done by pre-designed table. Results A total of 72 SRs/MAs were included in the present paper. The number of papers ranged from one in 1998 to 16 in 2012. The fields of disease were mainly related to digestive system (54/72,75.0%) and respiratory system (6/72,8.3%). Most of the papers (65/72,90.3%) were published in English and the rest (9.7%[7/72]) in Chinese. Totally 87.5%(63/72) of the papers were published in journals indexed by Science Citation Index. The majority of papers (67/72,93.1%) had their authors from the same country. The first authors of the included papers were mainly from China(23/72,31.9%) and the United States (22/72,30.6%), only with 5 studies done with international cooperation; and 77.8% (56/72) of the papers were completed by one institution (such as a hospital, a college or an institute). The characteristics table of included studies (61/72,84.7%) and forest plot (52/72,72.2%) were most frequently used. The number of references in English literature was about 2.5 times that of Chinese one, and the English papers had more references of the latest five years than the Chinese one. The average cites of SRs/MAs was only 36.3 in our study. It was found that 54.2% (39/72) SRs/MAs used QUADAS standard for assessing the quality of original research, which was recommended by Cochrane Handbook 5.1; there were still 38.9% (28/72) SRs/MAs did not report their quality assessment tool. No included Chinese paper reported fund support. Conclusion SRs/MAs of EUS for diagnosis is increasing on an annual basis. International cooperation should be improved among researchers for SRs/MAs studies and methodology researchers should be included for the study. QUADAS as diagnostic quality assessment tool should be encouraged. Flow chart and funnel plot should be strictly applied according to PRISMA statement.