黄芪注射液联合西药治疗糖尿病肾病的系统评价/Meta分析的文献质量评价＊

目的 引入雷达图从6个维度多元评价黄芪注射液联合西药治疗糖尿病肾病系统评价/Meta分析的文献质量,为临床工作者的证据选择提供循证参考。方法 计算机检索中国知网（CNKI）、中国生物医学文献数据库（SinoMed）、维普期刊网（VIP）、万方数据（Wanfang）、PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase等8个中英文数据库收录的黄芪注射液联合西药治疗糖尿病肾病（Diabetic kidney disease,DKD）系统评价/Meta分析的文献,截止至2019年5月21日（与正文时间不符,请确认）,对符合纳入标准的文献进行数据提取,从文献的发表年份、研究设计的类型、AMSTAR方法学质量评价、PRISMA报告学质量评价、同质性程度、发表偏倚等6个维度进行文献质量评价,计算评价得分及其秩数得分,合成结果绘制成雷达图进行可视化表述,评估黄芪注射液联合西药治疗DKD系统评价/Meta分析的文献质量。结果 共纳入8篇研究,秩数平均分依次是：2.83、5.16、3.83、5.17、3.67、6.33、5.5、5.5分,秩数得分平均分为4.75分,与满分8分之间存在较大差距;雷达图直观地反映本次纳入的8篇系统综述/Meta分析在6个维度上的得分普遍不高。结论 本次研究提示黄芪注射液联合西药治疗DKD系统评价/Meta分析的文献综合质量存在较大的改进空间,未来的研究者应该加强方法学质量和报告学质量,以提供更高质量的循证医学证据供临床工作者选择及参考。

Evaluation on Literature Quality of Systematic reviews/Meta-analysis of Huangqi Injection Combined with Western Medicine in Treating Diabetic Kidney Disease

Objective To multiply evaluate literature quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of Huangqi Injection combined with western medicine in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) from 6 dimensions based on radar plots, thus providing evidence-based reference for clinicians in evidence selection.Methods Eight Databases such like CNKI, SinoMed, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were retrieved for literatures on systematic reviews/meta-analysis of Huangqi Injection combined with western medicine in treating DKD published before May 21, 2019. Data extraction was performed in literatures that met inclusion criteria. The literature quality was evaluated from 6 dimensions (the year of publication, the type of study design, quality evaluation of AMSTAR methodology, quality evaluation of PRISMA reporting, the degree of homogeneity and publication bias). Evaluation scores and rank scores were calculated, and the results were synthesized into radar plots for visual representation to evaluate the literature quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of Huangqi Injection combined with western medicine in treating DKD. Restults A total of 8 studies were included. The average rank scores were 2.83, 5.16, 3.83, 5.17, 3.67, 6.33, 5.5 and 5.5, with an average of 4.75, and there was a big gap between it and the full score of 8. The radar plots visually showed that the scores of the 8 systematic reviews/meta-analysis were generally not high in the 6 dimensions.Conclusions The literature quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of Huangqi Injection combined with western medicine in treating DKD still has a lot of room for improvement, future researchers should focus on strengthening methodological quality and reporting quality to provide evidence-based medical evidence of higher quality for clinicians in selection and reference.