Liu Jian-ping, Xia Yun
Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing.
Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2007 Apr;27(4):306-11.
To critically assess the quality of literature about systematic review or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals.
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.
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.
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.
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。
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。
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。
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。