《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  

Randomized controlled trialQuality Evaluation on the Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses Related to Interventions Published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

作　　者：周为文[1,2] 葛龙[1,3] 徐俊峰[1,3] 石新彤[1,3] 梁莉[1,3] 安妮[1,3] 刘银春[1,3] 李雅睿[1,2] 马继春[1] 娜和亚[1] 田金徽[1] 

机构地区：[1]兰州大学基础医学院兰州大学循证医学中心,兰州730000 [2]兰州大学第二临床医学院,兰州730000 [3]兰州大学第一临床医学院,兰州730000

出　　处：《中国循证医学杂志》2013年第4期482-488,共7页Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine

基　　金：2011年兰州大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助(编号:lzjbky2011-13)

摘　　要：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。Objective To assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews/mem-a1~aly~ ,~ tions published in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine by PRISMA guidelines, and to analyze its influencing factors. Methods The systematic reviewslmeta＇analyses related to interventions were searched in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from its inception to 2011. The quality of the included reviews was assessed in accordance with the PRISMA checklist. Based on the degree of conformity with each criterion of PRISMA, the reviews were scored as ＂1＂, ＂0.5＂ or ＂0＂ orderly. The data were put into Excel, and the Meta-analyst software was used for statistical analyst. Re- suits Among all literature in the volume 11 （95） of the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from 2001 to 20 l 1, a total of 379 studies were included, and the number of publication showed a yearly rising trend. The PRISMA scale score ranged from 8.5 to 26 （~7＋SD） was 19.97＋3.15. Among all studies, 25 （6.60%） scored 21-27 points, which were regarded as the complete reporting; 226 （59.63%） scored 15-21 points, regarded as relatively complete reporting; and 128 （33.77%） scored less than 15 points, regarded as serious lack of information. The results of stratified analysis showed that, both the issue of PRISMA and fund support could improve the reporting quality, with a significant difference （P〈0.05）; and authors more than 3, authors from universities, and authors from more than 2 institutions could improve the reporting quality, but without a significant difference （P〉0.05）. Conclusion The overall reporting quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses related to interventions published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine is poor, and it is influenced by the factors of protocol and registration, have to be taken seriously. The reasonable utilization tematic reviews/meta-analyses. risk of bias across studies, other analyses, and fund support, which of the PRISMA checklist will impr

关 键 词：PRISMA 系统评价 META分析 报告质量 中国循证医学杂志 

分 类 号：R-03[医药卫生]