期刊文献+

国内公共卫生研究领域系统评价/Meta分析的质量评价 被引量:25

Quality Assessment for Chinese Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Public Health
分享 导出
摘要 目的评价国内发表的公共卫生领域6种重要疾病防治的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学和发表质量。方法计算机检索中国期刊全文数据库、万方医药期刊数据库、维普中文科技期刊全文数据库及中国生物医学文献数据库,检索时间从建库至2010年6月,查找涉及肿瘤、脑血管疾病、心血管疾病、乙肝、结核病以及艾滋病等6种重要疾病防治的系统评价或Meta分析的中文文献,由两名研究人员独立筛查文献,并采用OQAQ和PRISMA评价量表对文献的方法学质量和发表质量进行评价,而后交叉核对,如遇分歧讨论解决。结果共纳入139篇文献,包括32篇系统评价,107篇Meta分析,文献方法学质量评分最高6.5分,最低1.5分,平均4.66±0.92分。无一篇文献符合全部9个条目的要求,主要存在资料检索不全面、资料的选择偏倚控制不足、对纳入的原始研究缺乏严格的质量评价等问题。报告质量评分平均为15.28±2.91分,其主要问题表现在摘要、资料收集及分析方法、偏倚控制及总结等方面报道不全面。结论目前国内公卫研究领域已发表的肿瘤、心脑血管疾病等6种重要疾病防治的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量及报告质量尚存在不同程度的问题,需要进一步提高方法学水平和规范发表。 Objective To assess the methodology and report quality of Chinese systematic reviews/ meta-analyses on prevention and control of six major diseases in public health.Methods Chinese literatures of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses on prevention and control of six major diseases,including cancer,cerebrovascular disease,cardiovascular disease,hepatitis B,tuberculosis,and AIDS were searched in CQVIP,WANFANG Database,CNKI,and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database from the establishment date to June,2010.Two researchers independently screened and evaluated the data,disagreements were resolved by discussion.Methodology quality and report quality of included reviews were evaluated by OQAQ scale and PRISMA scale.Result Of the 139 literatures included in the analysis,32 were systematic reviews while 107 were meta-analyses.The highest and lowest scores of methodology quality were 6.5 and 1.5 respectively.The average score was 4.66±0.92 and no literature could meet all nine items.The main problems were insufficient in literatures resource,bias in data selection,lack of rigorous quality assessment for included original studies and so on.The average score of report quality were 15.28±2.91 and the main problems were incomplete report in abstract,data collection and analysis methods,bias control,conclusion and so on.Conclusion Both of the methodology quality and report quality of included literatures have problems in different levels,which require to be further improved.
作者 王靖 刘琴 翁淳光 汪洋 李蕾 雷迅 张帆 WANG Jing1,LIU Qin2,WENG Chun-guang1,WANG Yang2,LI Lei2,LEI Xun2,ZHANG Fan2 1.Information Management Department / Library,Chongqing Medical University,Chongqing 400016,China; 2.School of Public Health,Chongqing Medical University,Chongqing 400016,China
出处 《中国循证医学杂志》 CSCD 2010年第12期 1367-1374,共8页 Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine
基金 英国国际发展部及英国利物浦大学资助的国际合作项目
关键词 公共卫生 系统评价 META分析 质量评价 Public health Systematic review Meta-analysis Quality assessment
作者简介 王靖,女(1983年-),在读硕士研究生,研究方向:用户需求与情报分析,循证医学。 通讯作者,Email:liuqin81622@163.com
  • 相关文献

参考文献144

二级参考文献1851

共引文献1388

同被引文献512

引证文献25

二级引证文献122

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部 意见反馈