| 吴宇侠,王家良,康德英,胡丹.国内发表的中药相关系统评价的方法学质量评价[J].,2011,31(3):402-406 |
| 国内发表的中药相关系统评价的方法学质量评价 |
| Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews Correlated to Traditional Chinese Medicine Published in China |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 中医药 系统评价 Meta分析 方法学 质量评价 |
| 英文关键词:traditional Chinese medicine systematic review Meta-analysis methodology quality assessment |
| 基金项目:国家中医药管理局资助项目:中医临床方法学质量研究(No.2004DEA71040) |
|
| Hits: 1556 |
| Download times: 5 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的探讨两种方法学质量评价工具对中药相关系统评价的适用性,进而评价国内发表的中药相关系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量。方法 计算机检索CBM、CNKI、VIP,手工检索《中国循证医学杂志》,检索中文发表的中药相关系统评价,检索时间为1999年1月1日—2008年12月。利用OQAQ和AM-STAR同步评价与分析有关中药相关系统评价的方法学质量。结果 共纳入系统评价115个,涉及17类疾病,尤以心脑血管病居多(36篇,31.30%)。OQAQ评分平均为2.50(95%CI:2.22,2.76),与发表年度(P=0.35)及疾病种类无关(P=0.28)。AMSTAR与OQAQ的评价结果具有良好的一致性(Kappa值均>0.75)。AMSTAR增加了有关选题、发表性偏倚、利益冲突等方面的评价,结果显示尽管98.26%的系统评价事先均有周密设计,但53.04%未分析发表性偏倚,另有57.39%未申明潜在利益冲突。结论 国内发表的中医药系统评价的方法学质量有待提高,应加以重视。中医药系统评价选题应结合中医药本身特点,选题不宜过宽;有必要建立针对中医药系统评价的质量评价工具。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews or Meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine published in China,and to validate the applicability of OQAQ(Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire) and AMSTAR(a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) in traditional Chinese medicine(Chinese Medical).Methods Comprehensive literature retrieve was performed in CBM,CNKI,VIP as well as hand searching in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine.The retrieve was started from January 1,1999 and terminated by December 2008.The methodological quality of traditional Chinese medicine correlated systematic reviews was evaluated using OQAQ and AMSTAR simultaneously.Results A total of 115 systematic reviews involved 17 types of diseases,of which,the cardio-/cerebrovascular diseases was dominant(36 papers,31.30%).The mean OQAQ score was 2.50(95% CI:2.22,2.76).No significant correlation was found in OQAQ score with publication year(P=0.35) and different disease types(P=0.28).High consistency was observed in evaluations of systematic reviews by using OQAQ and AMSTAR(both Kappa values>0.75).Compared with the OQAQ,AMSTAR incorporated 3 additional items:the topics,publication bias,and conflict of interest,etc.Although 98.26% of systematic reviews proposed protocols in prior,53.04% failed to analyze the publication bias.Besides,57.39% neglected to address the potential conflict of interest.Conclusions Poor methodological quality in systematic reviews of Chinese Medical published in China needs to be improved and emphasized.It is necessary to integrate the special characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine itself when choosing topics of systematic reviews.It is essential to establish quality assessment tools targeting systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine. |
| View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
|
|
|
