国内腰痛指南和共识的方法学质量系统评价  

Systematic evaluation of methodological quality of guidelines and consensuses in China on low back pain

作　　者：陈培 简功辉 郭张浩 熊辉[1] CHEN Peit;JIAN Gonghui;GUO Zhanghao;XIONG Hui(Hunan University of Chinese Medicine,Changsha 410208,Hunan,China;The Second Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine,Changsha 410005,Hunan,China)

机构地区：[1]湖南中医药大学,湖南长沙410208 [2]湖南中医药大学第二附属医院,湖南长沙410005

出　　处：《中医正骨》2022年第11期27-31,共5页The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology

基　　金：长沙市科技计划项目(kh2201056)。

摘　　要：目的:系统评价国内腰痛指南和共识的方法学质量。方法:计算机检索中国知网、万方数据库、维普网、医脉通网、PubMed和Embase,搜集国内已发布的腰痛指南和共识,检索时限均为2016年1月至2021年10月。经过文献筛选、数据提取后,由3名研究者独立采用临床指南研究与评价系统Ⅱ(appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluationⅡ,AGREEⅡ)对纳入指南和共识的方法学质量进行评价。采用组内相关系数(interclass correlation coefficient,ICC)检验3名研究者评分的一致性。结果:共纳入19篇腰痛指南和共识,在AGREEⅡ6个领域的评分分别为范围与目的(64.04±17.99)%、参与人员(25.73±14.61)%、制定严谨性(25.88±20.55)%、表达清晰性(49.42±16.45)%、应用性(15.13±7.76)%、编辑独立性(1.32±3.12)%。3名研究者评价的总体一致性较好[ICC=0.87,95%CI(0.76,0.95)]。结论:国内现有腰痛指南和共识的方法学质量总体不高;未来的相关指南需要在方法学质量方面进一步提高,尤其是在参与人员、制定严谨性、应用性和编辑独立性方面。Objective:To systematically evaluate the methodological quality of guidelines and consensuses in China on low back pain.Methods:The published guidelines and consensuses on low back pain were retrieved from China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),Wanfang Data, VIP,Medlive, PubMed, and Embase from January 2016 to October 2021.After literature screening and data extraction, three investigators independently evaluated the methodological quality of the included guidelines and consensuses by virtue of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and EvaluationⅡ(AGREEⅡ).The consistency of the scores of the three investigators was examined by the interclass correlation coefficient(ICC).Results:Nineteen guidelines and consensus on low back pain were included.The scores for six domains of AGREEⅡare listed below-(64.04±17.99)% for scope and purpose,(25.73±14.61)% for stakeholder involvement,(25.88±20.55)% for the rigor of development,(49.42±16.45)% for clarity of presentation,(15.13±7.76)% for applicability, and(1.32±3.12)% for editorial independence.The overall consistency of the three investigators was good(ICC=0.87,95%CI(0.76,0.95)).Conclusion:The methodological quality of the guidelines and consensus available in China on low back pain is not high.Guidelines need to be further improved in methodological quality, particularly in terms of stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence.

关 键 词：腰痛 指南 共识 方法学质量 临床指南研究与评价系统Ⅱ 

分 类 号：R681.55[医药卫生—骨科学]