上海口腔医学

上海口腔医学 ›› 2015, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (4): 505-510.

• 系统评价 • 上一篇    下一篇

国内口腔医学领域系统评价、meta分析的方法学和报告质量评价

杨树亮, 应凯, 王凡, 王亮, 任镟伊, 杨庆福   

  1. 永康市第一人民医院口腔科,浙江永康 321300
  • 收稿日期:2015-01-04 出版日期:2015-08-20 发布日期:2015-09-10
  • 作者简介:杨树亮（1989-）,男,硕士,住院医师,

Methodological and reporting quality assessment for Chinese systematic reviews and meta analysis in oral medicine

YANG Shu-liang, YING Kai, WANG Fan, WANG Liang, REN Xuan-yi, YANG Qing-fu   

  1. Department of Stomatology, The First People’s Hospital of Yongkang City. Yongkang 321300, Zhejiang Province, China
  • Received:2015-01-04 Online:2015-08-20 Published:2015-09-10

RichHTML

0

PDF (PC)

584

被引次数

4

摘要： ]目的：评价国内发表的口腔医学领域的系统评价、meta分析的方法学和报告质量。方法计算机检索中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、万方医药期刊数据库和维普中文科技期刊全文数据库,检索时间从建库至2014年8月30日。查找关于口腔医学领域的系统评价、meta分析的中文文献,由2名研究人员独立筛查文献,采用AMSTAR和PRISMA评价量表对文献的方法学质量和报告质量进行评价和交叉核对,如遇分歧则讨论解决。结果共纳入204篇文献,文献方法学质量评分最高为9分,最低为0分,平均4.95±2.45分。问题主要体现在文献检索不够全面系统,没有提供纳入和排除的研究文献清单,缺乏对发表偏倚的评估等方面。报告质量评分最高为21分,最低为4分,平均为14.07±3.62分。主要问题表现在摘要、收集资料报告不规范、偏倚控制及总结等方面报道不全面。结论目前国内口腔医学领域已发表的系统评价、meta分析方法学质量普遍较低,报告质量也有待提高。

关键词: 口腔医学, 系统评价, Meta分析, 方法学质量评价, 报告质量评价

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the methodology and reporting quality of Chinese systematic reviews and meta analysis in oral medicine. METHODS: Chinese literatures of systematic reviews and meta analysis in oral medicine were searched in the CBM, VIP, WANFANG Database and CNKI from the establishment date to August 30, 2014. Two researchers screened and evaluated the data independently, and disagreements were resolved by discussion. Methodology and reporting quality of included literatures were evaluated by AMSTAR and PRISMA scale. RESULTS: Of the 204 literatures included in the analysis,the highest and lowest scores of methodology quality were 9 and 0, respectively. The average score was 4.95±2.45. The main problems were insufficient in literature searching, absence of a list of included and excluded studies, lack of assessment for publication bias, etc. The highest and lowest scores of reporting quality were 21 and 4, and the average score of reporting quality was 14.07±3.62. The main problems were incomplete report in abstract, data collection and analysis methods, bias control, conclusion, etc. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological qualities of Chinese systematic reviews and meta analysis in oral medicine are generally low, and their reporting qualities are also needed to be improved.

Key words: Oral medicine, Systematic review, Meta analysis, Methodology quality assessment, Reporting quality assessment Shanghai J Stomatol, 2015, 24(4):505-510.

中图分类号: