《中国循证儿科杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析报告质量评价  

Reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analysis of interventions published in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics

作　　者：安妮[1,2] 徐俊峰[1,2] 葛龙[1,2] 梁莉[2] 石新彤[1,2] 周为文[1,3] 马继春[1,2] 刘银春[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：《中国循证儿科杂志》2013年第2期110-115,共6页Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Pediatrics

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:lzjbky2011-13

摘　　要：目的评价中文儿科学科循证医学杂志发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量。方法检索创刊之日起至2011年12月31日《中国循证儿科杂志》和Pediatrics公开发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析,收集待评价文献的基本信息,采用系统综述和Meta分析优先报告的条目(PRISMA)量表进行评价。使用Review Manager5.2、Meta-Analyst软件进行统计分析。结果共纳入文献67篇。《中国循证儿科杂志》和Pediatrics分别为30篇和37篇。PRISMA量表评分最高24.5分,最低12.0分,平均(19.98±2.86)分。PRISMA发布前后,系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量差异无统计学意义。作者人数对系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量影响不显著。系统评价/Meta分析报告质量,有基金资助优于无基金资助,作者单位数量<2个优于作者单位数量≥2个,来自医院的作者优于来自研究机构,中文文献高于英文文献。PRISMA得分《中国循证儿科杂志》高于Pediatrics;《中国循证儿科杂志》66.7%的文献PRISMA得分集中在高质量分数段～27分,无低质量文献,Pediatrics70.3%的文献PRISMA得分集中在中等质量分数段～21分,低质量文献占13.5%。结论《中国循证儿科杂志》在理解和执行系统评价和Meta分析写作规范的努力是值得肯定的,进一步提高报告质量和规范发表还有很大空间。鉴于纳入评价的杂志和文献数较少,推而广之到儿科学杂志PRISMA评价报告质量还缺乏信心。Objective To assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews （ SRs ）/meta - analyses （ MAs ） of interventions published in Chinese Journal of Evidence - Based Pediatrics and Pediatrics. Methods According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the basic data of SRs/MAs of intervention RCTs were collected . The preferential reporting items （PRISMA statement） for SRs/MAs were applied to assess report quality. Analyses were performed using Excel, RevMan5 and Meta- Analyst software. Results A total of 67 SRs/MAs were included. The PRISMA checklist score ranged from 12.0 to 24.5, the average score was 19.98 ± 2. 86. There has been some improvement in total score after the PRISMA publishing, but there was no significant difference. The impact of authors＇ number to reporting quality wasn＇t statistically different. The reporting quality of funding theses, authors＇ number 〈 2, written by clinicians, Chinese theses and published in Chinese Journal of Evidence -Based Pediatrics was better than non -funding theses, authors＇ number 〉12, written by university, English theses and published in Pediatrics. The total score of included SRs/MAs published in Chinese Journal of Evidence - Based Pediatrics focused on high quality score （ - 27 ） （66. 7% ）, low quality score （ 〈 15） documents were not found. 70.3% SRs/MAs published in Pediatrics focused on medium quality score （ -21 ）, low quality score （ 〈 15 ） documents was 13.5%. Conclusions The effort was valuable for selecting two magazines in learning, understanding, and executing the writing specification of SRs/MAs, there are a large space to further improve the reporting quality and normative publication.

关 键 词：中国循证儿科杂志 系统评价 META分析 报告质量 质量评价 

分 类 号：G353[文化科学—情报学] R-5[医药卫生]