发表于《中华儿科杂志》的系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量和方法学质量评价  

Academic level of papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis published inChinese Journal of Pediatrics and methodology they used

作　　者：葛龙[1,2] 李雅睿[1,3] 曾巧铃[1,3] 王婧[1] 徐俊峰[1,2] 姚璐[1,3] 田金徽[1] 

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

出　　处：《中华医学图书情报杂志》2013年第12期55-60,共6页Chinese Journal of Medical Library and Information Science

摘　　要：目的:评价《中华儿科杂志》发表系统评价/Meta分析(SR/MA)的报告质量和方法学质量。方法:检索发表在《中华儿科杂志》上的系统评价/Meta分析文献,共纳入13篇。提取纳入文献的基本信息,采用系统综述和Meta分析优先报告的条目(PRISMA)规范和方法学质量评价工具AMSTAR量表进行质量评价,使用RevMan 5.0软件进行统计分析。结果:PRISMA评分范围14-23.5分,平均为20.0±3.11分;AMSTAR评分范围和平均分分别为3-7.5和6.04±1.38分。结论:《中华儿科杂志》发表系统评价/Meta分析报告和方法学质量中等,报告质量规范和方法学质量还有待提高。Objective To assess the academic level of papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis published in Chinese Journal of Pediatrics and methodology they used. Methods Basic data were extracted from 13 papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis published in Chinese Journal of Pediattics . The methodology they used was assessed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis （PRISMA） and ANSTAR Scale and analyzed using the RevMan5.0. Results The PRISMA score was 14-23.5 （mean 20.0± 3.11） and the AMSTAR score was 3-7.5 （mean 6.04±1.38） for the methodology used in papers on systematic reviews and recta-analysis published in Chinese Journal of Pediatrlcs . Conclusion The methodology used in papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis published in Chinese Journal of Pediatties is not quite valid and should thus be improved.

关 键 词：中华儿科杂志 系统评价 META分析 PRISMA AMSTAR 循证医学 

分 类 号：R311[医药卫生—基础医学] R72