对系统评价/Meta分析报告规范的系统评价_《中国循证医学杂志》

作者：

尹森林 ¹ ,  刘雪梅 ¹ , 何林 ² , 李幼平 ³

1. 四川大学华西医院华西期刊社（成都?610041）；2. 四川大学华西医院图书馆（成都?610041）；3. 四川大学华西医院中国循证医学中心（成都?610041）;

关键词：

系统评价 Meta分析报告规范

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20110162

视频：

导出 下载 收藏 扫码 引用

摘要 全文 图表 视频 参考文献 施引文献 补充材料

目的　全面收集系统评价/Meta分析的报告规范并对其进行评价，为系统评价/Meta分析的规范化发表及传播提供帮助。
方法　电子检索Ovid MEDLINE（1996～2010）及EMbase（截至2010年4月），纳入系统评价/Meta分析报告规范的文献，检索词包括guideline、report、systematic reviews、meta-analyses。通过阅读文题及摘要，排除无明显相关性的文献（针对具体疾病的系统评价，某一疾病的临床指南，以及仅讨论如何进行系统评价而未关注如何进行系统评价的报道等），而后进一步阅读全文，从纳入文献中提取如何报告系统评价/Meta分析的部分，并据其纳入原始研究设计的类型如随机对照试验、观察性研究、诊断性试验进行分类。
结果　初检获得285篇文献，最终纳入26篇文献。其中随机对照试验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范有8篇，非随机对照试验（观察性研究）的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范2篇，诊断性试验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范0篇，动物实验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范1篇，针对系统评价/Meta分析的检索策略的报告规范2篇，评估系统评价/Meta分析质量的5篇，研究报告规范对系统评价/Meta分析质量影响的6篇。有2个指南更新。
结论　目前系统评价/Meta分析报告规范数量较多，其中QUOROM及其更新版本PRISMA被众多期刊广泛采纳。报告规范有利于提高系统评价和Meta分析的报告质量，尚需制定针对具体专业系统评价/Meta分析的报告规范。

引用本文： 尹森林,刘雪梅,何林,李幼平. 对系统评价/Meta分析报告规范的系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(8): 971-977. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20110162 复制

1.	1 Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, et al . Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: A critical appraisal. Ann Surg , 2005, 241(3): 450-459.
2.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ , 1997, 156(10): 1411-1416.
3.	Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al . Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet , 1999, 354(9193): 1896-1900.
4.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med , 2009, 6(7): e1000097.
5.	Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, et al . The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol , 2008, 61(8): 770-775.
6.	Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al . A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical careliterature. Crit Care , 2005, 9(5): R575-582.
7.	Mrkobrada M, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Brian HR, et al . Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol , 2008, 3(4): 1102-1114.
8.	李廷谦, 刘雪梅, 张鸣明, 等. 中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价/ Meta分析现状调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(3): 180-188.
9.	刘雪梅. 提高随机对照试验Meta分析的质量: QUOROM 报告项目列表. 中国循证医学, 2002, 2(1): 65-66.
10.	Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med , 2009, 6(7): e1000100.
11.	Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [cited 2010 May 2010 3] Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
12.	Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, et al . 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine , 2009, 34(18): 1929-1941.
13.	Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al . Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA , 2000, 283(15): 2008-2012.
14.	Manchikanti L, Datta S, Smith HS, et al . Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Pain Physician , 2009, 12(5): 819-850.
15.	Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P. Does animal experimentation inform human health care? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ , 2002, 324(7335): 474-476.
16.	Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al . A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B , 2006, 41(7): 1245-1258.
17.	Jadad AR, Moher D, Klassen TP. Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: II. how did the authors find the studies and assess their quality?. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med , 1998, 152(8): 812-817.
18.	Booth A. Brimful of STARLITE: toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc , 2006, 94(4): 421.
19.	Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, et al . No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol , 2008, 61(8): 748-754.
20.	Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care [cited 2010 June 16]. Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/systematic_reviews_book.htm.
21.	Gerber S, Tallon D, Trelle S, et al . Bibliographic study showed improving methodology of meta-analyses published in leading journals 1993-2002. J Clin Epidemiol , 2007, 60(8): 773-780.
22.	Juni P, Egger M. PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet , 2009, 374(9697): 1221-1223.
23.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al . Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses:a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA , 1998, 280(3): 278-280.
24.	Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, et al . A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof , 2002, 25(1): 116-129.
25.	Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, et al . Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol , 2009, 62(10): 1021-1030.
26.	PRISMA Endorsers List [cited 2010 Jun 16]. Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/endorsers.htm.
27.	Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al . Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med , 1994, 120(8): 667-676.
28.	Kriston L, Harter M, Holzel L, et al . Challenges in reporting meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med , 2009, 150(6): 430.
29.	Eisenberg JM, Graham R. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence, AHRQ, 2002.

1. 1 Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, et al . Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: A critical appraisal. Ann Surg , 2005, 241(3): 450-459.
2. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ , 1997, 156(10): 1411-1416.
3. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al . Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet , 1999, 354(9193): 1896-1900.
4. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med , 2009, 6(7): e1000097.
5. Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, et al . The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol , 2008, 61(8): 770-775.
6. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al . A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical careliterature. Crit Care , 2005, 9(5): R575-582.
7. Mrkobrada M, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Brian HR, et al . Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol , 2008, 3(4): 1102-1114.
8. 李廷谦, 刘雪梅, 张鸣明, 等. 中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价/ Meta分析现状调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(3): 180-188.
9. 刘雪梅. 提高随机对照试验Meta分析的质量: QUOROM 报告项目列表. 中国循证医学, 2002, 2(1): 65-66.
10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med , 2009, 6(7): e1000100.
11. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [cited 2010 May 2010 3] Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
12. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, et al . 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine , 2009, 34(18): 1929-1941.
13. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al . Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA , 2000, 283(15): 2008-2012.
14. Manchikanti L, Datta S, Smith HS, et al . Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Pain Physician , 2009, 12(5): 819-850.
15. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P. Does animal experimentation inform human health care? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ , 2002, 324(7335): 474-476.
16. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al . A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B , 2006, 41(7): 1245-1258.
17. Jadad AR, Moher D, Klassen TP. Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: II. how did the authors find the studies and assess their quality?. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med , 1998, 152(8): 812-817.
18. Booth A. Brimful of STARLITE: toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc , 2006, 94(4): 421.
19. Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, et al . No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol , 2008, 61(8): 748-754.
20. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care [cited 2010 June 16]. Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/systematic_reviews_book.htm.
21. Gerber S, Tallon D, Trelle S, et al . Bibliographic study showed improving methodology of meta-analyses published in leading journals 1993-2002. J Clin Epidemiol , 2007, 60(8): 773-780.
22. Juni P, Egger M. PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet , 2009, 374(9697): 1221-1223.
23. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al . Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses:a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA , 1998, 280(3): 278-280.
24. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, et al . A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof , 2002, 25(1): 116-129.
25. Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, et al . Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol , 2009, 62(10): 1021-1030.
26. PRISMA Endorsers List [cited 2010 Jun 16]. Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/endorsers.htm.
27. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al . Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med , 1994, 120(8): 667-676.
28. Kriston L, Harter M, Holzel L, et al . Challenges in reporting meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med , 2009, 150(6): 430.
29. Eisenberg JM, Graham R. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence, AHRQ, 2002.

《中国循证医学杂志》

对系统评价/Meta分析报告规范的系统评价

摘要 全文 图表 视频 参考文献 施引文献 补充材料

上一篇

下一篇

Format

Content

《中国循证医学杂志》

对系统评价/Meta分析报告规范的系统评价

摘要 全文 图表 视频 参考文献 施引文献 补充材料

上一篇

下一篇

Format

Content

摘要全文图表视频参考文献施引文献补充材料