| 摘要: |
| ［摘要］ 目的 评价《中华预防医学杂志》发表的Meta分析文献的方法学质量和报告质量。方法 计算机检索及手工检索1998-01～2014-12《中华预防医学杂志》公开发表的Meta分析文献，采用AMSTAR量表及PRISMA量表进行方法学质量和报告质量评价。结果 共纳入文献31篇。方法学质量评分为3～8（中位数7）分，其中9～11分0篇(0.0%)，5～8分28篇(90.3%)，0～4分3篇(9.7%)；另外，“发表情况是否已考虑在纳入标准中的灰色文献、是否提供了纳入和排除的研究文献清单、是否评价和报道纳入研究的科学性、是否说明相关利益冲突”等条目符合率均较低。报告质量评分为10.5～23.5(17.32±3.71)分，≤15分9篇（29.0%），15.5～21分17篇（54.8%），21.5～27分5篇（16.2%），其中引言中的目的，方法中的方案和注册、研究选择、资料提取、资料条目，单个研究存在的偏倚，结果中的研究筛选，研究内部偏倚风险，讨论部分中的局限性及结论，资金支持中的资金等报告不够全面。结论 《中华预防医学杂志》发表的Meta分析文献方法学质量和报告质量中等，应按照系统评价的写作要求不断提高文献质量。 |
| 关键词: Meta分析 文献质量评价 中华预防医学杂志 |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-3806.2016.11.12 |
| 分类号:R 195.1 |
| 基金项目: |
|
| A systematic evaluation on the quality of Meta-analysis in articles published in the Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine from 1998 to 2014 |
|
WEI Suo-su, WEI Hui-de, HUANG Xiao-hong, et al.
|
|
Editorial Department of Chinese Journal of New Clinical Medicine, the People′s Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, China
|
| Abstract: |
| ［Abstract］ Objective To assess the methodological and reporting qualities of Meta-analyses published in Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine.Methods The Meta-analyses published in Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine from January 1998 to December 2014 were retrieved by computer or manual retrieval systems. The methodological and reporting qualities of Meta-analysis were evaluated by using both Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis(PRISMA) scales.Results A total of 31 papers were included. The scores of the evaluation of the methodological quality were 3 to 8(median 7) points in the included papers, of which 0 articles(0.0%) scored 9～11 points, 28 articles(90.3%) scored 5～8 points and 3 articles(9.7%) scored 0～4 points. The rate of matched items was low including those that were in accordance with the included and excluded criteria, those that needed to be verified the scientificity of the inclusive criteria and those that needed to be disclosed the conflict of interest. The scores of the reporting quality were 10.5 to 23.5(17.32±3.71) points in the included papers, of which 9 papers(29.0%) scored less than 15 points, 17 papers(54.8%) scored 15.5～21 points and 5 papers(16.2%) scored 21.5～27 points. The titles of PRISMA scales with a lack of comprehensive reports were the “Objective of introduction” in the introductions, the “Protocol and registration”, “Study selection”, “Data collection process”, “Data items” and “Risk of bias in individual studies” in the methods, the “Study selection” and “Risk of bias across studies” in the results, the “Conclusion limitations” in the conclusions and the “Funding support” in the acknowledgements.Conclusion The methodological and reporting qualities of Meta-analysis published in the Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine are moderate, both of which still require further improvement. |
| Key words: Meta-analysis Quality evaluation of literature Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine |
