中医药治疗慢性心力衰竭系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告质量评价  

Evaluation of the Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-analysis on Traditional Chinese Medicine for Chronic Heart Failure

作　　者：来晓磊[1] 黄明月 刘红旭[1] 尚菊菊[1] 邢文龙[1] 李享[1] LAI Xiaolei;HUANG Mingyue;LIU Hongxu;SHANG Juju;XING Wenlong;LI Xiang(Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Capital Medical University,Beijing,100010;Beijing University of Chinese Medicine)

机构地区：[1]首都医科大学附属北京中医医院,北京市100010 [2]北京中医药大学

出　　处：《中医杂志》2023年第15期1544-1549,共6页Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine

基　　金：北京市卫生健康委员会高层次公共卫生技术人才建设项目培养计划(学科骨干-02-25);北京中医药大学孙思邈研究院中医药科研计划资助项目(SSMYJY-2-2021-01)。

摘　　要：目的 评价中医药治疗慢性心力衰竭的系统评价和Meta分析的方法学和报告质量。方法 检索中文全文期刊数据库(CNKI)、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、万方医药期刊数据库(Wanfang Data)、维普中文科技期刊全文数据库(VIP)数据库,PubMed数据库、Scopus数据库、Cochrane数据库,检索时间从各数据库建库到2022年12月31日。纳入中医药治疗慢性心力衰竭的系统评价和Meta分析中英文文献,采用系统评价方法学质量评价AMSTAR量表和国际报告规范PRISMA量表分别进行方法学和报告质量评价。结果共纳入192篇系统评价/Meta分析文献,中文文献178篇,英文文献14篇,2008年到2022年总体发文量呈上升趋势。AMSTAR量表平均分为(6.46±1.32)分,中英文文献分别为(6.31±1.24)分、(8.29±0.83)分,3篇(1.6%)文献提供了前期设计方案,没有文献提供纳入研究及排除研究文献的清单,33篇(17.2%)文献将发表情况考虑在纳入标准中,83篇(43.2%)文献报告了相关利益冲突,4篇中文文献和6篇英文文献属于高质量文献,161篇中文文献和8篇英文文献属于中等质量文献,低质量文献13篇均为中文文献。PRISMA量表平均分为(19.95±3.13)分,中英文文献分别为(19.81±3.11)分、(21.75±2.92)分,5篇(2.6%)文献报告了研究方案和注册信息,69篇(35.9%)文献报告了其他分析结果。结论 中医药治疗慢性心力衰竭的系统评价和Meta分析的方法学质量及报告质量存在缺乏前期研究设计方案、未报告相关利益冲突、未提供纳入研究及排除研究文献的清单、结果报告不充分等问题,中文文献质量整体低于英文文献,需要进一步提高方法学水平和报告质量。Objective To evaluate the methodology and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of tra⁃ditional Chinese medicine(TCM)for chronic heart failure(CHF).Methods The literatures were searched in China National Network Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),Chinese Scientific Journal Database(VIP),Chinese BioMedical Litera⁃ture Database(CBM)and Wanfang Database,Pubmed,Scopus,and Cochrane library from their inception time to December 31st,2022.Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on TCM for CHF,either in English or Chinese,were included.The methodological and reporting quality of the included systematic reviews/meta-analyses were assessed using AMSTAR scale and PRISMA tool,respectively.Results A total of 192 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included,involving 178 Chinese and 14 English papers,and the overall number of publications showed an upward trend from 2008 to 2022.The average score of AMSTAR scale was 6.46±1.32,and the Chinese and English papers scored 6.31±1.24 and 8.29±0.83,respectively.Only 3 literatures(1.6%)registered the pre-study protocol before initiation.None provided a list of included and excluded studies,and only 33(17.2%)considered the publication status in the inclusion criteria.Only 83 studies(43.2%)noted conflicts of interest.Four Chinese literature and six English literature were of high quality;161 Chinese and 8 English literatures were evaluated as moderate quality;13 low-quality literatures were all in Chinese.The average PRISMA score was 19.95±3.13,and that of the Chinese and English papers was 19.81±3.11 and 21.75±2.92,respec⁃tively.Five papers(2.6%)reported protocol and registration information,and 69 papers(35.9%)reported other analyti⁃cal results.Conclusion Regarding the methodological and reporting quality of the systematic reviews/meta-analyses on TCM for CHF,there are still certain problems,such as lack of preliminary study design,failure to report relevant conflict of interest,lacking a list of included and excluded studies,and insufficient reporting of r

关 键 词：慢性心力衰竭 中医药疗法 系统评价 META分析 质量评价 

分 类 号：R259[医药卫生—中西医结合]