剂量-反应Meta分析报告指南(中文版)  

Proposed Reporting Guideline for Dose-response Meta-analysis(Chinese Edition)

作　　者：徐畅[1] Suhail A.R.Doi 张超[3] 孙鑫[4] 陈昊[5] 周权[6] 原瑞霞 郭鹏[8] 张龙浩[4] 牛玉明[3] 邝心颖[4] 刘同族[1] 

机构地区：[1]武汉大学中南医院泌尿外科,武汉430071 [2]澳大利亚国立大学临床流行病学中心 [3]十堰市太和医院循证医学中心,湖北十堰442000 [4]四川大学华西医院中国循证医学中心,成都610041 [5]南京中医药大学第二临床医学院,南京210000 [6]常德市第一人民医院科教处,湖南常德415003 [7]武汉大学公共卫生学院生物统计研究室,武汉430071 [8]湖北医药学院附属人民医院肝胆外科,湖北十堰442000

出　　处：《中国循证医学杂志》2016年第10期1221-1226,共6页Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(编号:30972975)

摘　　要：目的制定剂量-反应Meta分析(DMA)的中文版报告指南,以提高国内系统评价人员对DMA的认识及该类论文的报告质量。方法计算机检索MEDLINE、EMbase、The Cochrane Library、CNKI和Wan Fang Data数据库,搜集中国作者发表的DMA研究,检索时限为2011年1月1日至2015年12月31日。对纳入的DMA研究,分析其发文量的变化趋势,对报告指南的使用情况,以及使用的剂量-反应Meta分析方法是否正确;基于文献分析结果初步拟定DMA报告清单,并进一步组织DMA、循证医学和临床流行病学领域专家,以及临床专家对报告清单进行讨论,根据讨论结果修改形成最终版报告指南。结果共纳入252个DMA研究,其中仅33.73%在标题明确为DMA,48.02%报告了对偏倚风险进行评价,38.49%未遵循任何报告指南,14个研究使用的方法存在错误。基于文献分析结果及现存的Meta分析报告量表初步拟定出包含47个条目的 DMA报告清单,经国内外6位专家讨论后,最终制定出包含43个条目、最能反映DMA质量的报告清单(G-Dose Checklist)。结论国内作者对报告指南的重视程度仍不够,且可能存在理解不充分的风险。应重视DMA及其他Meta分析报告指南的使用。Objective To develop reporting guideline for dose-response meta-analysis（DMA）, so as to help Chinese authors to understand DMA better and to promote the reporting quality of DMA conducted by them. Method Pub Med, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wan Fang Data were searched from Jan 1st 2011 to Dec 30 th 2015 to collect DMA papers published by Chinese authors. The number of these publications by years, whether and what kind of reporting guideline was used, and whether the DMA method claimed in these publications was correct were analysed. Then we drafted a checklist of items for reporting DMA, and organized a discussion meeting with experts from the fields of DMA, evidence-based medicine, clinical epidemiology, and clinicians to collect suggestions for revising the draft reporting guideline for DMA. Results Only 33. 73 % of the publications clarified it is a DMA on the title and 48. 02 % of them reported risk of bias. Almost 38. 49 % of the publications didn＇t use any reporting guidelines. Fourteen of them claimed an incorrect use of methodology. We primarily took account for 47 potential items related to DMA based on our literature analysis results and existing reporting guidelines for other types of meta-analyses. After the discussion meeting with 6 experts, we revised the items, and finally the G-Dose checklist with 43 items for reporting DMA was developed. Conclusion There is a lack of attention on reporting guidelines in Chinese authors and evidence suggests these authors may be at risk of incomplete understanding on reporting guidelines. It is strongly recommended to use reporting guidelines for DMA and other types of meta-analyses in Chinese authors.

关 键 词：剂量-反应Meta分析 报告指南 横断面调查 

分 类 号：R-03[医药卫生]