摘要
目的调查我国以"循证"冠名的医学期刊发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析(SR/MA)的现状。方法根据纳入与排除标准选择《循证医学》(2001.1～2011.12)、《中国循证医学杂志》(2001.1～2011.12)、《中国循证儿科杂志》(2006.1～2011.12)和《中国循证心血管医学杂志》(2008.1～2011.12)所发表的干预类SR/MA,由两名评价者按制定的信息提取表独立提取资料并交叉核对,如有分歧,讨论解决。而后采用Excel软件进行统计分析。结果共纳入SR/MA 487篇,其中《中国循证医学杂志》379篇(77.82%),《循证医学》70篇(14.38%),《中国循证儿科杂志》30篇(6.17%),《中国循证心血管医学杂志》8篇(1.63%)。2001～2011年,SR/MA发表数量总体呈上升趋势,每篇文献作者的数量为5±2人;SR/MA纳入的RCT数量在1～129个不等,中位数8个;共涉及20个病种,研究领域较多的依次为肿瘤(83篇,17.04%)、循环系统疾病(63篇,12.73%)和泌尿生殖系统疾病(54篇,11.09%)等。所纳入的487篇SR/MA中,82.75%进行了方法学质量评价,44篇(9.03%)描述了质量评价方法但未展现质量评价结果,使用最多的评价标准为Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具(314篇,64.48%)。结论我国以"循证"冠名的医学期刊所发表的干预类SR/MA数量总体呈上升趋势,其选题来源广泛,但对纳入随机对照试验的质量评价标准的选择和实施尚待进一步加强。
Objective To survey the current situation of the systematic review（SR）/ meta-analysis（MA） related to interventions published in the Chinese medical journals entitled with evidence-based.Methods According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria,the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine（2001.1 to 2011.12）,the Chinese Journal of Evidencebased Medicine（2001.1 to 2011.12）,the Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Pediatrics（2006.1 to 2011.12） and the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine（2008.1 to 2011.12） were searched for SRs/MAs related to interventions.Two reviewers extracted data independently using predesigned a data extraction form,crosschecked data,and discussed to solve discrepancy.Excel software was used to for statistical analysis.Results A total of 487 SRs/MAs were included.379（77.82%） SRs/MAs were published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine,70（14.38%） in the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine,30（6.17%） in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics,and 8（1.63%） in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine.The number of SRs/MAs published generally increased during 2001 to 2011.The number of author of SRs/MAs was 5±2,the number of studies that included randomized controlled trials（RCTs） of SRs/MAs varied from 1 to 129（median： 8）,involving 20 diseases.83（17.04%） SRs/MAs focused on neoplasms,64（17.04%） on diseases of the circulatory system,and 54（11.09%） on diseases of the genitourinary system.82.75% of the included 487 SRs/MAs assessed the methodological quality of included RCTs.44（9.03%） SRs/MAs mentioned the methods of quality assessment,without reporting the results.The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias was the most frequently used for evaluation（314 SRs/MAs,64.48%）.Conclusion The number of SRs/MAs related to interventions published in the journals entitled with evidence-based is increasing generally and their topics are extensive.However,further studies should
出处
《中国循证医学杂志》
CSCD
2013年第7期896-900,共5页
Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine
基金
2011年兰州大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助(编号:lzjbky2011-13)
关键词
循证冠名期刊
系统评价
META分析
文献计量分析
Journal entitled with evidence-based
Systematic review
Meta-analysis
Bibliometrics analysis
