[中国肺炎系统评价与Meta分析的质量评价]

Hou Zheng-kun, Li Jian-sheng, Yu Xue-qing, Li Bin, Zhou Hong-yan, Zhang Yan-xia

The Geriatric Department of Henan College of TCM, Zhengzhou 450008, Henan, China.

Zhongguo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2009 Apr;21(4):207-10.

OBJECTIVE

To review and analyze the prevailing information and quality of published systematic reviews and Meta-analysis of pneumonia in China.

METHODS

After a CNKI, VIP, Wanfang and CMB database retrieval of systematic reviews and Meta-analysis of pneumonia published in Chinese journals, two reviewers, blinded to author (s), et al, independently collected and analyzed the common information and quality, using the form of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSR) and the quality of reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement.

RESULTS

Eleven papers, of which 4 were systematic reviews, 7 Meta-analysis were identified. Three hundred and twenty-six studies were analyzed with involvement of 17 971 individuals distributed in 30 domestic administrative regions and 7 foreign countries. None of these articles used the form of CSR or the QUOROM statement to report their results. In all 4 domains and 40 items of the form of CSR, 4 articles addressed 25 items, 3 addressed 2, 2 addressed 1, 1 addressed 5, 0 addressed 7, and the overall proportion for correspondent item information presented was 70.6% (113/160). In all 6 domains and 18 minor terms of the QUOROM statement, 7 articles addressed 10 items, 5 addressed 2, 4 addressed 2, 2 addressed 2, 1 addressed 1, 0 addressed 1, and the overall proportion for correspondent minor terms information presented was 73.8% (93/126). In all 48 checklist items, 7 articles addressed 10 items, 6 addressed 2, 5 addressed 1, 4 addressed 3, 3 addressed 5, 2 addressed 7, 1 addressed 6, 0 addressed 14, and the overall proportion for correspondent item information presented was 39.9% (134/336).

CONCLUSION

These studies of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses of pneumonia in China starts late, only a few of researchers and participants join in the project, and the financial support is insufficient. The quality of literature is passable, but it is weak in some areas such as data sources, selection searching, validity assessment, review methods, study characteristics, etc. The authors suggest that advanced methodological training is necessary for reviewers and stronger financial support is needed.

目的

回顾与分析国内已发表的关于肺炎的系统评价和Meta分析的现有信息及质量。

方法

通过中国知网、维普、万方和中国生物医学文献数据库检索中文期刊发表的关于肺炎的系统评价和Meta分析，两名对作者等信息不知情的评价者独立收集并分析其一般信息和质量，采用Cochrane系统评价（CSR）格式及Meta分析报告质量（QUOROM）声明。

结果

共纳入11篇文献，其中系统评价4篇，Meta分析7篇。共分析了326项研究，涉及分布在国内30个行政区和7个国家的17971例个体。这些文章均未采用CSR格式或QUOROM声明来报告结果。在CSR格式的所有4个领域和40项条目中，4篇文章涉及25项，3篇涉及2项，2篇涉及1项，1篇涉及5项，0篇涉及7项，对应条目信息呈现的总体比例为70.6%（113/160）。在QUOROM声明的所有6个领域和18个小项中，7篇文章涉及10项，5篇涉及2项，4篇涉及2项，2篇涉及2项，1篇涉及1项，0篇涉及1项，对应小项信息呈现的总体比例为73.8%（93/126）。在所有48项清单条目中，7篇文章涉及10项，6篇涉及2项，5篇涉及1项，4篇涉及3项，3篇涉及5项，2篇涉及7项，1篇涉及6项，0篇涉及14项，对应条目信息呈现的总体比例为39.9%（134/336）。