期刊文献+

ROBIS:评估系统评价偏倚风险的新工具 被引量:22

ROBIS: A New Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews
原文传递
导出
摘要 目前尚无专门针对系统评价设计、制作和分析过程中的偏倚风险进行评估的工具,而最新研发的ROBIS工具主要评估系统评价的偏倚风险,不仅用于评估包括干预性、诊断性、病因性、预后性等多种系统评价制作过程和结果解释过程中的偏倚风险,还用于评价系统评价问题与其使用者要解决的实践问题的相关性。本文旨在介绍ROBIS工具,为国内系统评价制作者、指南制定者和其他相关研究者提供理解和应用该工具的参考,从而提高制作系统评价的质量,促进其应用。 Currently there is no tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in the design, conduct or analysis of systematic reviews. ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews), which was developed lately, aims mainly to assess the risk of bias in the conduct and result interpretation of systematic reviews relating to interventions, etiology, diagnosis and prognosis, as well as the relevance of the systematic review questions and the practice questions that their users want to address. This paper aims to introduce the ROBIS tool to Chinese systematic review developers, guideline developers and other researchers to promote the comprehension of it and its application, so as to improve the quality of systematic reviews in China.
出处 《中国循证医学杂志》 CSCD 2015年第12期1454-1457,共4页 Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine
关键词 系统评价 偏倚风险 ROBIS Systematic review Risk of bias ROBIS
  • 相关文献

参考文献23

  • 1Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med, 1987, 106(3): 485-488. 被引量:1
  • 2Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol, 1995, 48(1): 167-171. 被引量:1
  • 3Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med, 1997, 126(5): 376-380. 被引量:1
  • 4Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr, 2002, 2(2): 1-3. 被引量:1
  • 5Jadad A, Moher M, Browman G, et al. Systematic reviews and meta analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ, 2000, 321(7256): 537-540. 被引量:1
  • 6Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analysis: a comparison of Cochrane paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998, 280(3): 278-280. 被引量:1
  • 7Schlosser RW, Goetze H. Effectiveness and treatment validity of interventions addressing self-injurious behavior: From narrative reviews to meta-analyses. Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities, 1992, 7: 135-175. 被引量:1
  • 8Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991, 44(11): 1271-1278. 被引量:1
  • 9Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991, 44(1): 91-98. 被引量:1
  • 10Shea 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. 被引量:1

二级参考文献31

  • 1刘建平,夏芸.中文期刊发表的中医药系统综述或Meta-分析文章的质量评价[J].中国中西医结合杂志,2007,27(4):306-311. 被引量:59
  • 2Porta M. Chief editor. A dictionary of epidemiology. Fifth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008: 217. 被引量:1
  • 3刘建平, 主编. 循证中医药研究方法. 第1版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2009: 298-299. 被引量:1
  • 4Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, et al . Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr , 2002, 2(2): 1-3. 被引量:1
  • 5Jadad A, Moher M, Browman G, et al . Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ , 2000, 321(7256): 537-540. 被引量:1
  • 6Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analysis: a comparison of Cochrane paper-based journals. JAMA , 1998, 280(3): 278-280. 被引量:1
  • 7Shea B, Dubé C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUOROM statement compared to other tools. In: Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in context. Edited by: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. London: BMJ books, 2001: 122-139. 被引量:1
  • 8Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles. BMJ , 1994, 309(6955): 648-651. 被引量:1
  • 9Sacks H, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al . Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med , 1987, 316(8): 450-455. 被引量:1
  • 10Moher 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. 被引量:1

共引文献379

同被引文献256

引证文献22

二级引证文献105

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