论文部分内容阅读
目的基于PRISMA和MOOSE清单对我国儿科领域所发表的不同类型系统评价/Meta分析(SR/MA)的报告质量现状及其存在的问题进行回顾性分析。方法检索CSCD收录的国内7本儿科专科杂志,由两名评价者独立进行资料提取,分别基于PRISMA清单和MOOSE清单,判断纳入的干预性SR/MA和观察性SR/MA在各条目上的符合率,并交叉核对。根据被引频次、发表时间对清单各个条目的符合率进行亚组分析。使用SPSS 22.0进行统计分析,对分类资料采用例数(n)和百分比(%)进行统计描述,组间比较采用卡方检验。结果共纳入SR/MA 157篇,包括干预性96篇,观察61篇。结果显示:1干预性SR/MA在PRISMA清单上的总体符合率较好,符合率超过50%的条目为20条(74.1%,20/27);观察性SR/MA在MOOSE清单上的总体符合率较低,低于50%的条目为15条(42.9%,15/35),更有20%的条目(7/35)符合率低于20%。2不同被引频次(≤5 vs.>5)的SR/MA在PRISMA和MOOSE清单条目上的符合率并无太大区别,且在85.2%(23/27)和97.1%(34/35)的条目上无统计学差异;3随着PRISMA清单的引入和传播,干预性SR/MA在绝大多数条目上的符合率得到一定程度的提高,且在条目8、19、20、23差异有统计学意义(P≤0.05)。结论国内儿科领域SR/MA的数量呈现不断增长的趋势,且随着PRISMA清单的发布,国内儿科领域干预性SR/MA在PRISMA清单中的绝大部分条目上的符合率得到一定程度的提高,而观察性SR/MA在MOOSE清单上的总体符合率依然不高。因此,今后应更加关注该类研究质量的提高而非数量的增长。
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the status quo of reporting quality and the existing problems of different types of systematic reviews / meta-analyzes (SR / MA) published in pediatrics in China based on the PRISMA and MOOSE lists. METHODS: Seven pediatric specialist journals, which were included in the CSCD, were searched. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Based on the PRISMA list and the MOOSE list, the compliance of the included intervention SR / MA and the observation SR / MA on each item Rate, and cross-check. According to the quoted frequency, published time on the list of the compliance rate of each sub-group analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0. The classification data were statistically analyzed using the number of cases (n) and the percentage (%), and the comparison among groups was performed using the chi-square test. Results A total of 157 SR / MA were included, including 96 interventions and 61 observation articles. The results showed that: 1 The overall compliance rate of interventional SR / MA on the PRISMA list was good, with 20 items (74.1%, 20/27) satisfying the rate of more than 50%; the total of the observation SR / MA on the MOOSE list The rate of coincidence was lower, with less than 50% of 15 items (42.9%, 15/35) and more of 20% (7/35) less than 20%. 2 The coincidence rates of SR / MA with different citation frequency (≤5 vs.> 5) in the PRISMA and MOOSE list entries were not much different, and between 85.2% (23/27) and 97.1% (34/35) There was no significant difference in the entries of the 3 items. 3 With the introduction and dissemination of the PRISMA list, the coincidence rate of the intervention SR / MA over the vast majority of entries was improved to a certain degree, and there was a significant difference in items 8, 19, 20, and 23 Statistical significance (P≤0.05). Conclusions The number of SR / MA in pediatrics in China has been on the rise. With the release of PRISMA, the coincidence rate of the interventional SR / MA in pediatrics in most of the entries in the PRISMA list has been somewhat improved. The overall compliance rate of observational SR / MA on MOOSE list is still not high. Therefore, in the future, more attention should be paid to improving rather than increasing the quality of such research.