中国循证医学杂志

中国循证医学杂志

2014 年外科手术干预疗效的英文 Meta 分析的方法学和报告质量评价

查看全文

目的对 2014 年已发表的外科手术干预疗效的 Meta 分析的方法学和报告质量进行评价。方法计算机检索 PubMed 和 EMbase 数据库,搜集 2014 年发表的所有与外科手术相关的英文 Meta 分析,采用 PRISMA 和 AMSTAR 量表分别评价其报告质量和方法学质量。通过单因素和多因素分析,对相关因素进行评价。结果共纳入 197 个研究,涵盖 10 个外科学亚专科手术干预评估的 Meta 分析。纳入 Meta 分析的 PRISMA 和 AMSTAR 量表平均得分分别为 22.2±2.4 分与 7.8±1.2 分,且两量表评分间呈正相关关系(R2=0.754)。有 Meta 分析写作经验的第一作者相比于无经验的第一作者的 Meta 分析的报告质量(P=0.002)和方法学质量(P=0.001)得分更高。Q1 区杂志的 Meta 分析比 Q2、Q3 区杂志的 Meta 分析的报告质量和方法学质量均更高(P 值均<0.001)。多因素分析结果表明,作者来源地区(非亚洲或亚洲)、第一作者发表经验(有或无过往发表经验)、出版期刊影响因子评级(Q1 或 Q2、Q3)和预注册(有或无)均为影响报告质量和方法学质量的独立因素。结论2014 年外科手术干预类的 Meta 分析的报告质量和方法学质量尚不理想,第一作者的发表经验和出版刊物的等级可能是影响报告质量和方法学质量的独立因素。预注册可能是一种能够提高 Meta 分析质量的有效措施,值得今后的 Meta 分析作者关注。

ObjectivesTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of surgical meta-analyses published in English in 2014.MethodsAll meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in 2014 were selected from PubMed and EMbase. The characteristics of these meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological quality were assessed by the PRISMA and AMSTAR, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsA total of 197 meta-analyses covering 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR score (by items) were 22.2±2.4 and 7.8±1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with a R2 of 0.754. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors who had previously published meta-analysis was significantly higher in reporting and methodological quality than those who had not (P<0.001). Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these reporting (P<0.001) and methodological (P<0.001) quality between studies published in Q1 ranked journals and (Q2+Q3) ranked jounals. On multivariate analyses, region of origin (non-Asiavs. Asia), publishing experience of first authors (ever vs. never), rank of publishing journals (Q1 vs. Q2+Q3), and preregistration (presence vs. absence) were associated with better reporting and methodologic quality, independently.ConclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of current surgical meta-analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors' experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration may be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analysis, which deserves more attention from future meta-analysis reviewers.

关键词: Meta 分析; 外科手术; 报告质量; 方法学质量; PRISMA; AMSTAR

Key words: Meta-analysis; Surgical procedures; Reporting quality; Methodological quality; PRISMA; AMSTAR

引用本文: 肖毅, 任彦顺, 王湘辉, 项红军. 2014 年外科手术干预疗效的英文 Meta 分析的方法学和报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(2): 216-224. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201702070 复制

登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看全文内容。 没有账号,
登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看图表内容。 没有账号,
1. Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA, 2014, 312(2): 171-179.
2. Berlin JA, Golub RM. Meta-analysis as evidence: building a better pyramid. JAMA, 2014, 312 (6): 603-605.
3. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA, 1995, 274 (22): 1800-1804.
4. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med, 1997, 126(5): 376-380.
5. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med, 1987, 316(8): 450-455.
6. Uthman OA, Okwundu CI, Wiysonge CS, et al. Citation classics in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: who wrote the top 100 most cited articles. PLoS One, 2013, 8(10): e78517.
7. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ, 2013, 347: f4501.
8. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ, 1997, 156(10): 1411-1416.
9. Bailar JC 3rd. The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med, 1997, 337(8): 559-561.
10. 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.
11. 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. Ann Intern Med, 2009, 151(4): W65-94.
12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2700.
13. Juni P, Egger M. PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet, 2009, 374(9697): 1221-1223.
14. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(10): 1013-1020.
15. Chafen JJ, Newberry SJ, Riedl MA, et al. Diagnosing and managing common food allergies: a systematic review. JAMA, 2010, 303(18): 1848-1856.
16. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One, 2007, 2(12): e1350.
17. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 10.
18. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses. Lancet, 1998, 352(9128): 609-613.
19. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, et al. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses. Lancet, 2000, 356(9237): 1228-1231.
20. Braga LH, Pemberton J, Demaria J, et al. Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology. J Urol, 2011, 186(1): 266-271.
21. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care, 2005, 9(5): R575-582.
22. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, et al. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement. Radiology, 2013, 269(2): 413-426.
23. 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.
24. Sauerland S, Seiler CM. Role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based medicine. World J Surg, 2005, 29(5): 582-587.
25. 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.
26. Shojania KG, Bero LA. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Effect Clin Pract, 2001, 4(4): 157-162.
27. Anello C, Fleiss JL. Exploratory or analytic meta-analysis: should we distinguish between them. J Clin Epidemiol, 1995, 48(1): 109-116.
28. SCImago. SJR- SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Avaliable at: http://www.scimagojr.com.
29. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, et al. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet, 2011, 377(9760): 108-109.
30. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med, 2001, 135(11): 982-989.