中国社区干预系统评价的质量评价  

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on community interventions in China

作　　者：王晓燕[1] 刘瑛[2] 宁艳花[1] WANG Xiaoyan;LIU Ying;NING Yanhua(Department of Community Nursing,the Nursing School of Ningxia Medical University,Yinchuan,750004,P.R.China;Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics,Public Health School of Ningxia Medical University,Yinchuan,750004,P.R.China)

机构地区：[1]宁夏医科大学护理学院社区护理系,银川750004 [2]宁夏医科大学公共卫生学院流行病学与卫生统计学系,银川750004

出　　处：《中国循证医学杂志》2018年第7期729-734,共6页Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目(编号:15CGL072)

摘　　要：目的评价中国社区干预的系统评价的方法学和报告质量,为我国社区卫生服务实践及研究提供参考。方法计算机检索The Cochrane Library、PubMed、EMbase、Web of Science、CNKI、VIP、WanFang Data和CBM数据库,搜集公开发表的中国社区干预的Meta分析或系统评价,检索时限均为建库至2017年8月3日。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料并采用AMSTAR和PRISMA量表评价纳入研究的方法学和报告质量。采用SPSS 20.0软件进行统计分析。结果共纳入18个研究。AMSTAR平均得分为4.67±1.68分;所有研究均未提供纳入与排除文献清单,也未说明纳入研究的利益冲突。PRISMA平均得分为16.42±3.65分;报告质量存在问题主要表现在方案与注册、检索、补充分析、研究间偏倚风险和资金支持方面。结论我国社区干预的系统评价的方法学和报告质量均不高。未来研究应注意研究结果合并方法的正确性、单个研究质量及发表偏倚的评估以提高方法学质量,并遵循PRISMA规范进行报告。Objectives To assess the characteristics, methodological and reporting qualities of systematic reviews on community interventions in China. Methods The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP,WanFang Data and CBM databases were searched for studies of community interventions from inception to August 2017.Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological and reporting quality by AMSTAR tool and PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was performed by SPSS 20.0 software. Results A total of 18 systematic reviews of community interventions were included. The average AMSTAR score was 4.67±1.68, and all studies did not provide the list of included and excluded studies or a statement on conflict of interests. The average PRISMA score was 16.42±3.65, and over 50.0% of the included systematic reviews did not perform protocol and registration, search,additional analyses, risk of bias of included studies and funding. Conclusions The evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses of community interventions in China is insufficient. The combination of results, quality of individual research and the evaluation of publication bias should be paid more attention to improve methodological quality. The reporting of meta-analyses of community interventions in China should follow the PRISMA checklist.

关 键 词：社区干预 中国 系统评价 META分析 方法学质量 报告质量 AMSTAR PRISMA 

分 类 号：R197.1[医药卫生—卫生事业管理]