| 刘建平,夏芸.中文期刊发表的中医药系统综述或Meta-分析文章的质量评价[J].,2007,(4):306-311 |
| 中文期刊发表的中医药系统综述或Meta-分析文章的质量评价 |
| Quality Appraisal of Systematic Reviews or Meta-analysis on Traditional Chinese Medicine Published in Chinese Journals |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 中医药 系统综述 系统评价 Meta-分析 质量评价 报告标准 |
| 英文关键词:traditional Chinese medicine systematic review systemic evaluation Meta-analysis quality appraisal reporting standard |
| 基金项目:国家重点基础研究发展计划资助(No2006CB504602) |
|
| Hits: 1762 |
| Download times: 20 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的评价中文期刊发表的中医药系统综述/Meta-分析的质量。方法电子检索中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、中文科技期刊数据库(VIP)和万方数据库,鉴定所有中医药包括中医、中药、中西医结合、针刺及针灸的系统综述(系统评价)或Meta-分析报告,按照国际Meta-分析报告标准《QUOROM声明》中的18项条目及相关信息提取资料,评价指标主要包括有无具体目的、资料来源、资料提取方法、纳入研究的质量评价、定量资料综合等。结果鉴定了共82篇中医药系统综述文章,排除重复发表和不符合纳入标准的6篇,最终纳入76篇进行质量评价,涉及51种疾病。其中,疗效评价70篇,以中药疗效评价为主,针灸疗效的9篇。大多数系统综述以随机对照试验为纳入研究,描述了资料来源;而26篇仅检索了中文资料库,对资料提取和分析的方法描述过于简单,70%(53/76)评价了纳入研究的质量。所有系统综述均未采用流程图表示研究的选择、纳入与排除过程。结论能够达到国际标准的高质量中医药系统综述/Meta-分析很少,其方法学描述不足,难以得到重复,研究者尚需要严格的方法学培训。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To critically assess the quality of literature about systematic review or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals. Methods Electronic searches in CNKI, VIP and Wanfang data-base were conducted to retrieve the systematic reviews or meta-analysis reports on TCM, including herbal medicine, needling, acupuncture and moxibustion, as well as integrative medicine, they were identified and extracted according to the 18 items of QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analyses) Statement and relative information. The appraisal was made taking the indexes mainly including objectives, source of data, methods of data extraction, quality assessment of the included studies, measurement data synthesis, etc. Results Eighty-two systematic reviews were identified, except 6 reviews were excluded for repeatedly published or didn′t comply with the enrolled criterion, 76 reviews concerning 51 kinds of diseases were enrolled for appraisal. Among them, 70 reviews evaluated the efficacy of TCM, mainly on Chinese herbs and 9 on acupuncture and moxibustion. In majority of the reviews, randomised controlled trials were included and the data resources were described, but in 26 reviews only the Chinese databases were searched and the description about data extraction and analysis method were too simple; and 70% of reviews assessed the quality of the included studies; none used flow chart to express the process of selection, inclusion and exclusion of studies. Conclusions Few reviews or Meta-analysis reports reached the international standard and there is insufficient description of methodology for conducting systematic reviews, so it is hardly to be repeated. The authors suggested that advanced methodological training is necessary for reviewers. |
| View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
|
|
|
