Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
Hum Reprod. 2012 Dec;27(12):3460-6. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des342. Epub 2012 Oct 2.
Are there differences in the methodological quality of Cochrane systematic reviews (CRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCRs) of assisted reproductive technologies?
CRs on assisted reproduction are of higher methodological quality than similar reviews published in other journals.
The quality of systematic reviews varies.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: This was a cross-sectional study of 30 CR and 30 NCR systematic reviews that were randomly selected from the eligible reviews identified from a literature search for the years 2007-2011.
MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: We extracted data on the reporting and methodological characteristics of the included systematic reviews. We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the 11-domain Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and subsequently compared CR and NCR systematic reviews.
The AMSTAR quality assessment found that CRs were superior to NCRs. For 10 of 11 AMSTAR domains, the requirements were met in >50% of CRs, but only 4 of 11 domains showed requirements being met in >50% of NCRs. The strengths of CRs are the a priori study design, comprehensive literature search, explicit lists of included and excluded studies and assessments of internal validity. Significant failings in the CRs were found in duplicate study selection and data extraction (67% meeting requirements), assessment for publication bias (53% meeting requirements) and reporting of conflicts of interest (47% meeting requirements). NCRs were more likely to contain methodological weaknesses as the majority of the domains showed <40% of reviews meeting requirements, e.g. a priori study design (17%), duplicate study selection and data extraction (17%), assessment of study quality (27%), study quality in the formulation of conclusions (23%) and reporting of conflict of interests (10%).
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The AMSTAR assessment can only judge what is reported by authors. Although two of the five authors are involved in the production of CRs, the risk of bias was reduced by not involving these authors in the assessment of the systematic review quality.
Not all systematic reviews are equal. The reader needs to consider the quality of the systematic review when they consider the results and the conclusions of a systematic review.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There are no conflicts with any commercial organization. Funding was provided for the students by the summer studentship programme of the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences of the University of Auckland.
Cochrane 系统评价（CRs）和非 Cochrane 系统评价（NCRs）在辅助生殖技术方面的方法学质量是否存在差异？
CRs 在辅助生殖方面的方法学质量高于其他期刊发表的类似综述。
系统评价的质量存在差异。
研究设计、规模和持续时间：这是一项横断面研究，对 2007-2011 年间文献检索中随机选择的 30 篇 CR 和 30 篇 NCR 系统评价进行了研究。
材料、设置和方法：我们提取了纳入系统评价的报告和方法学特征的数据。我们使用 11 项评估系统评价方法学质量的测量工具（AMSTAR）工具评估了评价的方法学质量，随后比较了 CR 和 NCR 系统评价。
AMSTAR 质量评估发现，CR 优于 NCR。在 11 个 AMSTAR 领域中有 10 个领域，要求在>50%的 CR 中得到满足，但只有 4 个领域在>50%的 NCR 中得到满足。CR 的优势在于预先设计的研究、全面的文献检索、纳入和排除研究的明确清单以及对内部有效性的评估。在重复研究选择和数据提取（67%符合要求）、评估发表偏倚（53%符合要求）以及报告利益冲突（47%符合要求）方面，CR 存在显著的缺陷。NCR 更容易出现方法学上的缺陷，因为大多数领域显示出<40%的综述符合要求，例如预先设计的研究（17%）、重复研究选择和数据提取（17%）、研究质量评估（27%）、研究质量在结论制定（23%）和报告利益冲突（10%）。
局限性、谨慎的原因： AMSTAR 评估只能判断作者所报告的内容。尽管有两位作者参与了 CR 的制作，但通过不邀请这些作者评估系统评价的质量，降低了偏倚的风险。
并非所有系统评价都是平等的。当读者考虑系统评价的结果和结论时，他们需要考虑系统评价的质量。
研究资助/利益冲突：与任何商业组织均无冲突。奥克兰大学医学与健康科学学院的暑期学生计划为学生提供了资金。
