冲突性Meta分析评价方法:Jadad法则简介  

A Brief Introduction of Jadad Algorithm of Interpreting Discordant Meta-analyses

作　　者：帅婷[1] 田旭[1,2] 王新田[3] 靳英辉[2,4] 易莉娟 张慧[1] 宋国敏[5] 

机构地区：[1]天津中医药大学研究生院,天津300193 [2]天津中医药大学护理学院,天津300193 [3]西北民族大学医学院护理教研室,兰州730030 [4]天津中医药大学循证护理中心,天津300193 [5]天津市天津医院护理部,天津300211

出　　处：《中国循证医学杂志》2016年第4期492-496,共5页Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine

摘　　要：随着循证理念在国内的广泛传播,系统评价/Meta分析已逐渐成为指导医疗决策的重要工具。然而,伴随系统评价/Meta分析发表量急剧增加,出现了针对相同或相似临床问题的多篇系统评价/Meta分析。而这些已发表的系统评价/Meta分析的结果并不总是一致,这就使制定临床决策变得尤为困难。如何从诸多主题相近的系统评价/Meta分析中获取支持决策的证据是卫生保健研究者和决策者必须解决的问题。为此加拿大McMaster大学的Jadad等提出了用于评价冲突性Meta分析的Jadad法则。本文将对该方法进行介绍,并通过实例来展示该法则的具体应用。Meta-analysis has been regarded as the critical tool of assisting the healthcare professionals to make decisions. And the theory of evidence-based medicine is widely disseminated in domestic. However, it must be noted that the increasing number of meta-analyses causes a fact that several meta-analyses investigating the same or similar clinical questions were captured commonly. More importantly, the results from these meta-analyses are often conflicting. Consequently, decision-making of those healthcare professionals who depend on those results become a thorny thing. To address this issue, Jadad et al. from McMaster University proposed an adjunct algorithm to help healthcare professionals to select the best result from conflicting meta-analyses to make decisions properly. Our article will introduce the tool briefly and explain the process of it with an example.

关 键 词：META分析 冲突性 Jadad法则 

分 类 号：R-03[医药卫生]