邮件订阅 RSS

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

中文期刊发表的预测模型系统评价文献调查与评价：方法学质量和报告质量

王子怡,  卢存存,  黄家艺,  张晶磊,  尚文茹,  崔璐,  刘文迪,  邓秀秀,  赵晓晓,  杨克虎,  李秀霞

downloadPDF
文章导航 > 协和医学杂志  > 2023 > 优先出版
王子怡, 卢存存, 黄家艺, 张晶磊, 尚文茹, 崔璐, 刘文迪, 邓秀秀, 赵晓晓, 杨克虎, 李秀霞. 中文期刊发表的预测模型系统评价文献调查与评价：方法学质量和报告质量[J]. 协和医学杂志. doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2023-0418
引用本文: 王子怡, 卢存存, 黄家艺, 张晶磊, 尚文茹, 崔璐, 刘文迪, 邓秀秀, 赵晓晓, 杨克虎, 李秀霞. 中文期刊发表的预测模型系统评价文献调查与评价：方法学质量和报告质量[J]. 协和医学杂志. doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2023-0418
shu
WANG Ziyi, LU Cuncun, HUANG Jiayi, ZHANG Jinglei, SHANG Wenru, CUI Lu, LIU Wendi, DENG Xiuxiu, ZHAO Xiaoxiao, YANG Kehu, LI Xiuxia. Investigation and Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Prediction Models Published in Chinese Journals: Methodological and Reporting Quality[J]. Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital. doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2023-0418
Citation: WANG Ziyi, LU Cuncun, HUANG Jiayi, ZHANG Jinglei, SHANG Wenru, CUI Lu, LIU Wendi, DENG Xiuxiu, ZHAO Xiaoxiao, YANG Kehu, LI Xiuxia. Investigation and Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Prediction Models Published in Chinese Journals: Methodological and Reporting Quality[J]. Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital. doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2023-0418
shu

中文期刊发表的预测模型系统评价文献调查与评价：方法学质量和报告质量

doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2023-0418

  • 1 兰州大学循证社会科学研究中心/卫生技术评估中心, 公共卫生学院, 兰州 730000;

  • 2 兰州大学循证医学中心, 基础医学院, 兰州 730000;

  • 3 中国中医科学院中医临床基础医学研究所, 北京 100700;

  • 4 武汉大学公共卫生学院, 武汉 430062;

  • 5 成都市郫都区中医医院消化科, 成都 611730

基金项目: 

中央高校基本科研业务费专项基金（lzujbky-2021-ct06,lzujbky-2021-kb22）

详细信息
    通讯作者:

    卢存存,E-mail:cuncunlu2017@163.com

    李秀霞,E-mail:lixiuxia@lzu.edu.cn

  • 中图分类号: R181.2

Investigation and Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Prediction Models Published in Chinese Journals: Methodological and Reporting Quality

  • 1 Evidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;

  • 2 Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;

  • 3 Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China;

  • 4 School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430062, China;

  • 5 Department of Gastroenterology, Chengdu Pidu District Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu 611730, China

Funds: 

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (lzujbky-2021-ct06

    摘要
  • 摘要: 目的 评价中文期刊发表的预测模型系统评价文献的方法学质量和报告质量，以期为提高我国预测模型系统评价质量提供参考。 方法 计算机检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、中国生物医学文献数据库和维普数据库，获取自建库至2023年7月20日发表的系统评价相关文献。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料后，采用AMSTAR与PRISMA 2020分别评价纳入系统评价的方法学质量和报告质量。 结果 共纳入发表于2015~2023年的55篇系统评价，其中12篇为Meta分析，涉及主题为心血管疾病、脑卒中和糖尿病。预测模型系统评价的方法学质量需要改进的内容主要涉及AMSTAR的条目1、4、5、6和10，报告质量需要提高的内容主要涉及PRISMA 2020的条目7、10a、12、13a-f、14、15、16a-b,17、20b-d、21、22、23d、24a-c、25和26。纳入系统评价的方法学质量与报告质量具有中等程度正相关（r=0.58，P < 0.001）。多重线性回归分析表明，更多的论文页数、近期发表和受到基金资助与更高的方法学质量相关（P < 0.05）；更多的论文页数、近期发表、发表为定性系统评价和受到基金资助与更高的报告质量相关，但更多的作者却与更低的报告质量相关（P < 0.05）。 结论 当前中文期刊发表的预测模型系统评价的方法学质量和报告质量整体较低，尚有待提高。
    Abstract: Objective To analyze the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of prediction models published in Chinese journals, with the aim of providing references for enhancing the quality of Chinese systematic reviews of prediction models. Methods Chinese systematic reviews of prediction models were electronically searched in CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM, and VIP databases from inception to July 20, 2023. Two independent reviewers screened literature, extracted data, and used the AMSTAR and PRISMA 2020 tools to assess methodological and reporting quality of the included reviews. Results A total of 55 systematic reviews published between 2015 and 2023 were included, with 12 of them being meta-analyses. These reviews encompassed a range of topics, with a primary focus on cardiovascular diseases, stroke, and diabetes. The identified systematic reviews exhibited obvious deficiencies in some areas, including items 1, 4, 5, 6, and 10 of AMSTAR, as well as items 7, 10a, 12, 13a-f, 14, 15, 16a-b, 17, 20b-d, 21, 22, 23d, 24a-c, 25 and 26 of PRISMA 2020. Furthermore, a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.58, P < 0.001) was observed between the methodological and reporting quality. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed: greater number of pages, more recent publications, and funding support were associated with higher methodological quality (P < 0.05). Similarly, greater number of pages, more recent publications, qualitative systematic reviews, and funding support were associated with higher reporting quality, but the number of authors showed a negative association (P < 0.05). Conclusions The current systematic reviews of prediction models published in Chinese journals require enhancement in both methodological and reporting quality.
    • HTML全文
    • 参考文献(1)
  • [1] 王昊玥, 王俊峰. 临床预测模型研究中的常见误区[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2023, 18: 758-769. [4] Hueting TA, Van Maaren MC, Hendriks MP, et al. The majority of 922 prediction models supporting breast cancer decision-making are at high risk of bias[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2022, 152: 238-247. [5] Kaiser I, Diehl K, Heppt MV, et al. Reporting Quality of Studies Developing and Validating Melanoma Prediction Models: An Assessment Based on the TRIPOD Statement[J]. Healthcare (Basel), 2022, 10: 238. [6] Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JPA, et al. How to Read a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Apply the Results to Patient Care: Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature[J]. JAMA, 2014, 312: 171-179. [7] Hoffmann TC, Oxman AD, Ioannidis JP, et al. Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions[J]. BMJ, 2017, 358. [8] Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 10. [9] 丁舒, 吴瑛, 陶香君, 等. 院内患者谵妄风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2015, 50: 7. [10] 靳育静, 高鹰, 张卿. Gail 模型在我国女性乳腺癌发病风险预测中的研究:系统综述与 Meta 分 析[J]. 现代肿瘤医学, 2022, 30: 7. [11] 梁诗雨, 李晨阳, 邵乐文. ICU 后综合征风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 中国护理管理, 2023, 23: 7. [12] 詹立睿, 张紫薇, 宋萍, 等. 2 型糖尿病患者低血糖风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 中华糖尿病杂 志, 2023, 15: 244-251. [13] Zeraatkar D, Bhasin A, Morassut RE, et al. Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study[J]. Am J Clin Nutr, 2021, 113: 1578-1592. [14] Grammatopoulos T, Hunter JWS, Munn Z, et al. Reporting quality and risk of bias in JBI systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of interventions: a methodological review protocol[J]. JBI Evid Synth, 2023, 21: 584-591. [15] 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]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62: 1013-1020. [16] Page MJ, Mckenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews[J]. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71. [17] Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews[J]. BMJ, 2021, 372: n160. [18] 徐俊峰, 安妮, 周为文, 等. 《中国循证医学杂志》 发表的干预类系统评价/Meta 分析方法学 质量评价[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13: 605-611. [19] 卢存存, 柯立鑫, 汤昊, 等. 中文期刊发表的氨甲环酸 Meta 分析的报告质量与方法学质量评价 [J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2021, 21: 7. [20] Li J, Tang L, Tang H, et al. Reporting quality of systematic review protocols of interventions for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review protocol[J]. Medical Data Mining, 2021, 4: 12. [21] Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation[J]. Anesth Analg, 2018, 126: 1763-1768. [22] Villa M, Le Pera M, Cassina T, et al. Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review[J]. BMJ Open, 2023, 13: e070639. [23] Paez A. Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews[J]. J Evid Based Med, 2017, 10: 233-240. [24] Brozek JL, Canelo-Aybar C, Akl EA, et al. GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence-An overview in the context of health decision-making[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 129: 138-150. [25] 陈汐敏. 我国医学期刊论文发表偏倚的调查和思考[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019, 030: 715-720. [26] 王佳琳, 闫佰荟, 王璐, 等. 中文肿瘤学干预类 Meta 分析论文摘要报告质量评价分析[J], 2020, 29: 24-31. [27] 王朝宏, 张卫国, 杜媛鲲, 等. 中华超声影像学杂志 2010-2012 年基金项目论文统计分析与评价 [J]. 中华超声影像学杂志, 2013, 22: 2. [28] 王国豪, 靳英辉, 张磊, 等. 国内中医护理系统评价/Meta 分析的报告质量与方法学质量评价[J]. 护理学杂志, 2016, 31: 98-102. [29] Snell KIE, Levis B, Damen JAA, et al. Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis: checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (TRIPODSRMA)[J]. BMJ, 2023, 381: e073538. [30] Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both[J]. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008.

    Hendriksen JM, Geersing GJ, Moons KG, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic prediction models[J]. J Thromb Haemost, 2013, 11 Suppl 1: 129-141. [2] Meehan AJ, Lewis SJ, Fazel S, et al. Clinical prediction models in psychiatry: a systematic review of two decades of progress and challenges[J]. Mol Psychiatry, 2022, 27: 2700-2708. [3]
    • 相关文章
    • 施引文献
  • 资源附件(0)
  • 加载中
WeChat 点击查看大图
计量
  • 文章访问数:  104
  • HTML全文浏览量:  25
  • PDF下载量:  14
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2023-09-05
  • 录用日期:  2023-10-18
  • 网络出版日期:  2023-11-27

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回
    友情链接: 国家卫生健康委员会 北京协和医院 中国医学科学院 学术不端检测系统 国际知识资源总库 中国知网 术语在线 中国全科医学
    地址：北京市东城区帅府园1号 北京协和医院老楼7号楼
    3层302室 《协和医学杂志》编辑部
    电话：010-69154261/4262
    E - mail：medj@pumch.cn
    mjpumch@126.com
    期刊网站版权所有：《协和医学杂志》编辑部
    京ICP备 11002662

    本系统由 北京仁和汇智信息技术有限公司 开发    百度统计

    x 关闭 永久关闭

    【温馨提醒】近日，《协和医学杂志》编辑部接到作者反映，有多名不法人员冒充期刊编辑发送见刊通知，鼓动作者添加微信，从而骗取版面费的行为。特提醒您，本刊与作者联系的方式均为邮件通知或电话，稿件进度通知邮箱为：mjpumch@126.com，编辑部电话为：010-69154261，请提高警惕，谨防上当受骗！如有任何疑问，请致电编辑部核实。谢谢！