《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量评价  

Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses of Intervention Published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

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

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

出　　处：《中国循证医学杂志》2013年第5期605-611,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：目的分析《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量及其影响因素,以期为改善国内干预类系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量提供依据。方法检索《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,采用AMSTAR量表对纳入研究的方法学质量进行评价。数据录入采用Excel软件,统计分析采用Meta-Analyst软件。结果共纳入干预类系统评价/Meta分析379篇,其AMSTAR量表平均得分6.15±1.35分(1.5～9.5分)。纳入研究的发表年代、是否有基金资助、作者数、作者单位性质和作者单位数仅对AMSTAR量表部分条目评分有影响。2008年及其以后发表的系统评价/Meta分析的AMSTAR总分高于2008年以前(P=0.02),但提高程度有限,作者数≥3人的系统评价/Meta分析AMSTAR总分高于≤2人者(P=0.04)。结论《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量参差不齐,虽AMSTAR发布后方法学质量有所改善,但不明显,需进一步提高方法学质量。Objective To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of interven- tion published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, so as to provide evidence for improving the domestic methodological quality. Methods The systematic reviews or meta-analyses of intervention published from 2001 to 2011 were identified by searching the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by AMSTAR scale. The Excel software was used to input data, and Mata-Analyst software was used to conduct statistical analysis. Results A total of 379 studies were included. The average score of AMSTAR was 6.15±1.35 （ 1.5-9.5 point）. Just some items of AMSTAR scale were influenced by the following features of included studies： publica- tion date, funded or not, number of author, author＇s unit, and number of author＇s unit. The total AMSTAR score of stud- ies published after 2008 was higher than those published before 2008 （P=0.02）, but the improvement of methodological quality was limited. While the total AMSTAR score of studies published by 3 or more than 3 authors were higher than those published by 2 or less than 2 authors （P=0.04）. Conclusion The methodological quality of the included studies published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics is uneven. Although the methodological quality improves somewhat after the publication of AMSTAR scale, there is no big progress, so it still needs to be further improved.

关 键 词：系统评价 META分析 报告质量 方法学 AMSTAR量表 中国循证医学杂志 

分 类 号：R-03[医药卫生]