论文部分内容阅读
目的系统评价全世界脑胶质瘤干预类系统评价/Meta分析(SR/MA)的方法学和报告质量。方法计算机检索Pub Med、EMbase、h e Cochrane Library、CNKI、CBM等数据库,纳入脑胶质瘤干预类SR/MA,检索时限截至2013年7月。由2位研究者独立筛选文献,而后采用AMSTAR和PRISMA清单对纳入研究的方法学与报告质量进行评价与分析。结果共纳入51个SR/MA。结果显示:纳入研究中方法学质量存在的主要问题有无研究设计方案、检索策略不全面、纳入研究出版物形式局限、未评价文章发表偏倚及未说明相关利益冲突;纳入研究的报告质量存在的主要问题是检索策略的报告不规范、纳入研究质量和偏倚风险报道不全面和研究结果表述不全(部分缺乏森林图、综合结果的估计值和可信区间、异质性检验结果)。结论脑胶质瘤干预类SR/MA的方法学质量和报告质量还存在不同程度的问题,该领域研究者应提高SR/MA制作的科学性和规范性,并遵循PRISMA进行报告。
Objective To systematically evaluate the methodology and quality of systematic reviews / meta-analyzes (SR / MA) of glioma interventions worldwide. Methods The databases of Pub Med, EMbase, HCV Library, CNKI and CBM were searched by computer and included in glioma intervention type SR / MA. The search time was up to July 2013. The two investigators independently screened the literature and then used the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists to evaluate and analyze the methodology and reporting quality of the included studies. Results A total of 51 SR / MA were included. The results showed that the main problems in the quality of methodologies included in the study were research design, incomplete search strategies, inclusion of formal publication limitations, unbiased publication of articles and conflicting interests, and the quality of the reported studies The main problems are non-standard reporting of search strategies, inadequate coverage of research quality and bias risks, inadequate coverage of research findings (lack of forest maps in part, estimates of composite outcomes and confidence intervals, heterogeneity test results). Conclusions There are still some problems about the methodological quality and reporting quality of SR / MA intervention in glioma. The researchers in this field should improve the scientific and normative SR / MA production and follow the report of PRISMA.