• 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

文献研究表明,1993年至2002年间发表在主流期刊上的荟萃分析方法有所改进。

Bibliographic study showed improving methodology of meta-analyses published in leading journals 1993-2002.

作者信息

Gerber Stefan, Tallon Deborah, Trelle Sven, Schneider Martin, Jüni Peter, Egger Matthias

机构信息

Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, CH-3012 Berne, Switzerland.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Aug;60(8):773-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.10.022. Epub 2007 Mar 26.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.10.022
PMID:17606172
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the methodology of meta-analyses published in leading general and specialist medical journals over a 10-year period.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Volumes 1993-2002 of four general medicine journals and four specialist journals were searched by hand for meta-analyses including at least five controlled trials. Characteristics were assessed using a standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 272 meta-analyses, which included a median of 11 trials (range 5-195), were assessed. Most (81%) were published in general medicine journals. The median (range) number of databases searched increased from 1 (1-9) in 1993/1994 to 3.5 (1-21) in 2001/2002, P<0.0001. The proportion of meta-analyses including searches by hand (10% in 1993/1994, 25% in 2001/2002, P=0.005), searches of the grey literature (29%, 51%, P=0.010 by chi-square test), and of trial registers (10%, 32%, P=0.025) also increased. Assessments of the quality of trials also became more common (45%, 70%, P=0.008), including whether allocation of patients to treatment groups had been concealed (24%, 60%, P=0.001). The methodological and reporting quality was consistently higher in general medicine compared to specialist journals.

CONCLUSION

Many meta-analyses published in leading journals have important methodological limitations. The situation has improved in recent years but considerable room for further improvements remains.

摘要

目的

评估在10年期间发表于主要综合性和专科医学期刊上的Meta分析方法。

研究设计与背景

通过手工检索1993 - 2002年4种综合性医学期刊和4种专科期刊,查找包含至少5项对照试验的Meta分析。使用标准化问卷评估其特征。

结果

共评估了272项Meta分析,其中位试验数为11项(范围5 - 195项)。大多数(81%)发表于综合性医学期刊。检索数据库的中位(范围)数量从1993/1994年的1个(1 - 9个)增加到2001/2002年的3.5个(1 - 21个),P<0.0001。包含手工检索(1993/1994年为10%,2001/2002年为25%,P = 0.005)、灰色文献检索(分别为29%、51%,经卡方检验P = 0.010)和试验注册库检索(分别为10%、32%,P = 0.025)的Meta分析比例也有所增加。对试验质量的评估也变得更为常见(分别为45%、70%,P = 0.008),包括患者分配至治疗组是否被隐匿(分别为24%、60%,P = 0.001)。与专科期刊相比,综合性医学期刊的方法学和报告质量始终更高。

结论

发表于主要期刊上的许多Meta分析存在重要的方法学局限性。近年来情况有所改善,但仍有很大的进一步改进空间。

相似文献

1
Bibliographic study showed improving methodology of meta-analyses published in leading journals 1993-2002.文献研究表明,1993年至2002年间发表在主流期刊上的荟萃分析方法有所改进。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Aug;60(8):773-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.10.022. Epub 2007 Mar 26.
2
The methodologic quality of randomization as assessed from reports of trials in specialist and general medical journals.从专业医学期刊和普通医学期刊的试验报告中评估随机化的方法学质量。
Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1995 Aug 26;Doc No 197:[81 paragraphs].
3
The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal.Cochrane系统评价数据库中重症监护荟萃分析报告的质量:一项独立评估。
Crit Care Med. 2007 Feb;35(2):589-94. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000253394.15628.FD.
4
Do orthopaedic journals provide high-quality evidence for clinical practice?骨科期刊能否为临床实践提供高质量的证据?
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003 Apr;123(2-3):82-5. doi: 10.1007/s00402-003-0501-4. Epub 2003 Mar 22.
5
Assessing the reporting and scientific quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of treatments for anxiety disorders.评估焦虑症治疗随机对照试验的Meta分析的报告质量和科学质量。
Ann Pharmacother. 2008 Oct;42(10):1402-9. doi: 10.1345/aph.1L204. Epub 2008 Sep 2.
6
An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently.一项对认可CONSORT的普通医学期刊和专业期刊的分析发现,报告要求并未得到始终如一的执行。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Jul;58(7):662-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.004.
7
The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals.试验摘要的报告质量欠佳:对主要综合医学期刊的调查。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Apr;62(4):387-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.05.013. Epub 2008 Nov 17.
8
Improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials among general anesthesiology journals 2000 to 2006: a 6-year follow-up.2000年至2006年普通麻醉学杂志随机对照试验质量的改善:一项为期6年的随访研究。
Anesth Analg. 2009 Jun;108(6):1916-21. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31819fe6d7.
9
[Handsearching for randomized controlled clinical trials in German medical journals].[在德国医学期刊中手工检索随机对照临床试验]
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Feb;133(6):230-4. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1017501.
10
An analysis of randomized controlled trials published in the US family medicine literature, 1987-1991.1987 - 1991年发表于美国家庭医学文献中的随机对照试验分析。
J Fam Pract. 1994 Sep;39(3):236-42.

引用本文的文献

1
Correcting for outcome reporting bias in a meta-analysis: A meta-regression approach.在荟萃分析中校正结局报告偏倚:一种荟萃回归方法。
Behav Res Methods. 2024 Mar;56(3):1994-2012. doi: 10.3758/s13428-023-02132-2. Epub 2023 Jul 24.
2
Primary versus secondary source of data in observational studies and heterogeneity in meta-analyses of drug effects: a survey of major medical journals.观察性研究中数据的主要来源与次要来源以及药物效应荟萃分析中的异质性:对主要医学期刊的调查。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Sep 27;18(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0561-3.
3
Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews.
图书馆员对儿科系统评价文献检索部分报告的影响。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):267-277. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004.
4
Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis.全球协作网络对高影响因子医学期刊发表的随机试验荟萃分析:社会网络分析。
BMC Med. 2014 Jan 29;12:15. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-12-15.
5
Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings.系统综述和荟萃分析初级保健环境中的实践促进。
Ann Fam Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;10(1):63-74. doi: 10.1370/afm.1312.
6
From QUOROM to PRISMA: a survey of high-impact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature.从 QUOROM 到 PRISMA:对高影响力医学期刊对作者的指导意见的调查,以及对麻醉文献中系统评价的综述。
PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027611. Epub 2011 Nov 16.
7
The quality of meta-analyses of genetic association studies: a review with recommendations.基因关联研究的Meta分析质量:一项带有建议的综述
Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Dec 1;170(11):1333-43. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp350. Epub 2009 Nov 9.
8
Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis.成人肺炎球菌疫苗接种的疗效:一项荟萃分析。
CMAJ. 2009 Jan 6;180(1):48-58. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.080734.