• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价或Meta分析的质量评价]

[Quality appraisal of systematic reviews or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine published in Chinese journals].

作者信息

Liu Jian-ping, Xia Yun

机构信息

Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing.

出版信息

Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2007 Apr;27(4):306-11.

PMID:17526167
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To critically assess the quality of literature about systematic review or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals.

METHODS

Electronic searches in CNKI, VIP and Wanfang data-base were conducted to retrieve the systematic reviews or meta-analysis reports on TCM, including herbal medicine, needling, acupuncture and moxibustion, as well as integrative medicine, they were identified and extracted according to the 18 items of QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analyses) Statement and relative information. The appraisal was made taking the indexes mainly including objectives, source of data, methods of data extraction, quality assessment of the included studies, measurement data synthesis, etc.

RESULTS

Eighty-two systematic reviews were identified, except 6 reviews were excluded for repeatedly published or didn't comply with the enrolled criterion, 76 reviews concerning 51 kinds of diseases were enrolled for appraisal. Among them, 70 reviews evaluated the efficacy of TCM, mainly on Chinese herbs and 9 on acupuncture and moxibustion. In majority of the reviews, randomised controlled trials were included and the data resources were described, but in 26 reviews only the Chinese databases were searched and the description about data extraction and analysis method were too simple; and 70% of reviews assessed the quality of the included studies; none used flow chart to express the process of selection, inclusion and exclusion of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Few reviews or Meta-analysis reports reached the international standard and there is insufficient description of methodology for conducting systematic reviews, so it is hardly to be repeated. The authors suggested that advanced methodological training is necessary for reviewers.

摘要

目的

严格评估发表于中文期刊的关于中医系统评价或Meta分析的文献质量。

方法

通过中国知网、维普和万方数据库进行电子检索,以获取关于中医的系统评价或Meta分析报告,包括草药、针刺、艾灸以及中西医结合,依据QUOROM(Meta分析报告质量)声明的18项内容及相关信息进行识别和提取。评估主要采用包括目的、数据来源、数据提取方法、纳入研究的质量评估、计量资料合成等指标。

结果

共识别出82篇系统评价,除6篇因重复发表或不符合纳入标准被排除外,纳入76篇涉及51种疾病的评价进行分析。其中,70篇评价了中医的疗效,主要针对中药,9篇针对针灸。大多数评价纳入了随机对照试验并描述了数据来源,但26篇仅检索了中文数据库,且对数据提取和分析方法的描述过于简单;70%的评价对纳入研究进行了质量评估;无一使用流程图来表示研究的选择、纳入和排除过程。

结论

很少有评价或Meta分析报告达到国际标准,且进行系统评价的方法学描述不足,难以重复。作者建议对评价者进行先进的方法学培训。

相似文献

1
[Quality appraisal of systematic reviews or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine published in Chinese journals].[中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价或Meta分析的质量评价]
Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2007 Apr;27(4):306-11.
2
[Quality appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of pneumonia in China].[中国肺炎系统评价与Meta分析的质量评价]
Zhongguo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2009 Apr;21(4):207-10.
3
Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.发表于中文期刊的护理干预系统评价和Meta分析的流行病学、质量及报告特征
Nurs Outlook. 2015 Jul-Aug;63(4):446-455.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.11.020. Epub 2014 Dec 4.
4
[Appraisal of meta-analysis manuscripts on eye diseases published in Chinese journals with QUOROM statement and MOOSE guidelines].[应用QUOROM声明和MOOSE指南对中文期刊发表的眼科疾病Meta分析手稿进行评价]
Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2011 Aug;47(8):732-7.
5
Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions published in Chinese journals.中文期刊发表的针灸干预系统评价的流行病学、质量和报告特征。
J Altern Complement Med. 2012 Sep;18(9):813-7. doi: 10.1089/acm.2011.0274.
6
[Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis for reporting quality of Chinese meta-analysis on stomatology].[口腔医学中文Meta分析报告质量的系统评价与Meta分析优先报告条目]
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2011 May;46(5):257-62.
7
Review of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses investigating Traditional Chinese Medicine treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus.关于研究中医治疗2型糖尿病的系统评价和Meta分析的综述
J Tradit Chin Med. 2016 Oct;36(5):555-63. doi: 10.1016/s0254-6272(16)30074-7.
8
Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.基于证据的医学、系统评价以及介入性疼痛管理指南:第6部分。观察性研究的系统评价与荟萃分析
Pain Physician. 2009 Sep-Oct;12(5):819-50.
9
Methodology and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine.中医药系统评价/荟萃分析的方法学与报告质量
J Altern Complement Med. 2007 Oct;13(8):797-805. doi: 10.1089/acm.2007.7195.
10
Epidemiology characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.中文期刊发表的关于中医护理干预的系统评价和Meta分析的流行病学特征、报告特征及方法学质量
Int J Nurs Pract. 2017 Feb;23(1). doi: 10.1111/ijn.12498. Epub 2016 Dec 21.

引用本文的文献

1
Efficacy and Safety of Chinese Patent Medicine Combined With Oseltamivir in Treatment of Children With Influenza: A meta-Analysis.中成药联合奥司他韦治疗儿童流感的疗效与安全性:一项Meta分析
Front Pharmacol. 2021 Aug 6;12:682732. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.682732. eCollection 2021.
2
PRISMA extension for moxibustion 2020: recommendations, explanation, and elaboration.针灸 2020 年 PRISMA 扩展:建议、解释和详述。
Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 25;9(1):247. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01502-7.
3
Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion.
艾灸系统评价的报告质量
Chin Med. 2020 Sep 29;15:104. doi: 10.1186/s13020-020-00385-z. eCollection 2020.
4
The importance and necessity of establishing technical specifications for the registration of Traditional Chinese Medicine clinical studies.建立中医药临床研究注册技术规范的重要性与必要性。
J Altern Complement Med. 2014 Jan;20(1):65-6. doi: 10.1089/acm.2013.0353. Epub 2013 Dec 18.
5
Content analysis of systematic reviews on effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine.系统评价中医药有效性的内容分析。
J Tradit Chin Med. 2013 Apr;33(2):156-63. doi: 10.1016/s0254-6272(13)60118-1.
6
Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.中医药 Cochrane 系统评价概述。
PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28696. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028696. Epub 2011 Dec 9.
7
Risk of bias tool in systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture in Chinese journals.中文期刊中针刺系统评价/荟萃分析的偏倚风险工具。
PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28130. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028130. Epub 2011 Dec 9.
8
Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine interventions published in Chinese journals.中文期刊发表的中医药干预系统评价的流行病学、质量和报告特征。
PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e20185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020185. Epub 2011 May 25.
9
Quality assessment of reporting of randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding in traditional Chinese medicine RCTs: a review of 3159 RCTs identified from 260 systematic reviews.中文临床试验随机分配、隐藏和盲法报告质量评估:260 项系统评价中 3159 项随机对照试验的综述
Trials. 2011 May 13;12:122. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-122.