Hu Dan, Kang De-ying, Wu Yu-xia
Department of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu.
Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2011 Mar;31(3):402-6.
To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews or Meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine published in China, and to validate the applicability of OQAQ (Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire) and AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) in traditional Chinese medicine (Chinese Medical).
Comprehensive literature retrieve was performed in CBM, CNKI, VIP as well as hand searching in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The retrieve was started from January 1, 1999 and terminated by December 2008. The methodological quality of traditional Chinese medicine correlated systematic reviews was evaluated using OQAQ and AMSTAR simultaneously.
A total of 115 systematic reviews involved 17 types of diseases, of which, the cardio-/cerebrovascular diseases was dominant (36 papers, 31.30%). The mean OQAQ score was 2.50 (95% CI: 2.22, 2.76). No significant correlation was found in OQAQ score with publication year (P = 0.35) and different disease types (P = 0.28). High consistency was observed in evaluations of systematic reviews by using OQAQ and AMSTAR (both Kappa values > 0.75). Compared with the OQAQ, AMSTAR incorporated 3 additional items: the topics, publication bias, and conflict of interest, etc. Although 98.26% of systematic reviews proposed protocols in prior, 53.04% failed to analyze the publication bias. Besides, 57.39% neglected to address the potential conflict of interest.
Poor methodological quality in systematic reviews of Chinese Medical published in China needs to be improved and emphasized. It is necessary to integrate the special characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine itself when choosing topics of systematic reviews. It is essential to establish quality assessment tools targeting systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine.
评估国内发表的中医系统评价或Meta分析的方法学质量，验证《循证医学》质量评价问卷（OQAQ）和系统评价质量评估工具（AMSTAR）在中医领域的适用性。
通过中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）、中国知网（CNKI）、维普资讯（VIP）进行全面文献检索，并在中国循证医学杂志进行手工检索。检索时间从1999年1月1日开始，至2008年12月结束。同时采用OQAQ和AMSTAR对中医相关系统评价的方法学质量进行评价。
共纳入115篇系统评价，涉及17种疾病类型，其中心血管疾病相关的系统评价最多（36篇，占31.30%）。OQAQ平均得分为2.50（95%CI：2.22，2.76）。OQAQ得分与发表年份（P = 0.35）及不同疾病类型（P = 0.28）之间均无显著相关性。采用OQAQ和AMSTAR对系统评价的评价结果一致性较高（Kappa值均>0.75）。与OQAQ相比，AMSTAR增加了3个条目：研究主题、发表偏倚和利益冲突等。尽管98.26%的系统评价事先制定了研究方案，但53.04%的系统评价未分析发表偏倚。此外，57.39%的系统评价未提及潜在的利益冲突。
国内发表的中医系统评价方法学质量有待提高和重视。在选择系统评价主题时，有必要结合中医自身特点。建立针对中医系统评价的质量评价工具很有必要。
