中国科学引文数据库收录期刊的系统评价/Meta分析文献方法学质量评价

刘辉; 苏仁凤; 石安娅; 姚媛媛; 周奇; 王子君; 铁锐; 卢梦颖; 张豪; 孙浩楠; 赵俊贤; 赵思雅; 杨克虎; 刘兴荣; 陈耀龙

doi:10.12290/xhyxzz.2022-0317

中国科学引文数据库收录期刊的系统评价/Meta分析文献方法学质量评价

Methodological Quality Analysis of Systematic Review/Meta-analysis Published in Chinese Science Citation Database Journals

摘要

摘要:
目的评价中国科学引文数据库(Chinese Science Citation Database，CSCD)收录期刊2020年发表的系统评价/Meta分析(systematic review/meta analysis，SR/MA)文献的方法学质量，旨在为我国研究人员制作SR/MA提供建议，为编辑和审稿专家审阅SR/MA提供参考。
方法以CSCD收录的中华医学会杂志社系列期刊为样本形成期刊列表。4名研究人员两两分组独立进行手动检索，纳入期刊发表于2020年的SR/MA文献，1名研究人员在中国知网进行补充检索。研究人员两两分组对纳入的研究进行独立筛选和信息提取，使用AMSTAR 2(A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2，AMSTAR 2)评价工具进行方法学质量评价并对评价结果进行统计学分析。
结果共79本中华医学会杂志社系列期刊被CSCD收录，其中46本期刊在2020年发表SR/MA文献，按照纳入和排除标准进行筛选，共纳入126篇SR/MA文献。AMSTAR 2评价结果显示，SR/MA文献的平均得分为(10.38±1.91)分；9个条目的符合/部分符合比例在70%以上；SR/MA至少符合/部分符合5个AMSTAR 2条目，最多符合/部分符合12个条目；关键条目未调整前超过90%的SR/MA可信度分级为“极低”，结合国内实际情况调整关键条目后，分别有约40%的SR/MA可信度分级为“中”和“低”；分层分析结果显示，是否使用GRADE分级、是否遵循PRISMA声明、作者数量是否＞5、发表语种是否不同、纳入研究类型是否包括随机对照试验和是否报告资金资助均不是SR/MA方法学质量的影响因素。
结论 CSCD收录期刊2020年发表的SR/MA文献方法学质量仍有待提高，未来应重点关注SR/MA的注册、检索、纳入和排除标准及资金资助等问题，以切实提高SR/MA的方法学质量。

Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of systematic review/meta analysis (SR/MA) published in Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) journals in 2020, with the aim of providing suggestions for researchers in China to develop SR/MA and reference for editors and reviewers to review SR/MA.
Methods The list of journals was formed with a sample of journals published by the Chinese Medical Association Publishing House and included in CSCD. Four researchers working in pairs conducted independently manual searches on the official websites of the journals to include SR/MA published in 2020, and one researcher conducted a supplementary search on China National Knowledge Infrastructure. After identifying the included literature, the researchers worked in pairs to extract information independently, evaluated methodological quality by using AMSTAR 2(A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) and performed statistical analysis of the results.
Results A total of 79 journals from the Chinese Medical Association Publishing House were included in CSCD, 46 of which published SR/MA in 2020, and 126 SR/MA were included for analysis after screening according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. AMSTAR 2 evaluation results showed that the average score of SR/MA was 10.38±1.91. The scored proportion of 9 items was more than 70%. SR/MA met partially/met a minimum of 5 AMSTAR 2 items and a maximum of 12 items. Before the key items were adjusted, over 90% of SR/MA's credibility rating was critically low. After adjusting the key items according to the actual Chinese situation, about 40% of SR/MA's credibility rating was medium and low, respectively. The results of the stratified analysis showed that the use of GRADE, adherence to the PRISMA statement, the number of authors greater than 5, the language of publication, the type of included studies including RCTs, and the reporting of funding were not factors that influenced the methodological quality of SR/MA.
Conclusions The methodological quality of SR/MA published in CSCD journals in 2020 need to improve. Attention should be paid to the registration, retrieval, inclusion and exclusion criteria of SR/MA as well as financial support, so as to effectively improve the quality of SR/MA.

HTML全文

参考文献(39)

施引文献

资源附件(0)