• 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

[口腔医学中文系统评价中多个系统评价评估的可靠性与有效性评估]

[Assessment of reliability and validity of assessment of multiple systematic reviews in Chinese systematic reviews on stomatology].

作者信息

Su Naichuan, Lü Jun, Li Chunjie, Chen Liangping, Shi Zongdao

机构信息

State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.

出版信息

Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2013 Feb;31(1):49-52.

PMID:23484302
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To measure the agreement, reliability and validity of assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) to assess Chinese systematic reviews on stomatology.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic search was made through Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals and China National Knowledge Infrastructure electronically on March 1st 2011 together with handsearch through 19 stomatological journals to identify published Chinese systematic reviews on stomatology. Each systematic review was assessed by two reviewers with overview quality assessment questionnaire (OQAQ) and AMSTAR. And reliability (interobserver Kappa of the 11 AMSTAR items), interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the sum scores and construct validity (ICC of the sum scores of AMSTAR compared with those of the OQAQ) were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 52 systematic reviews on stomatology were eligible. The reviewers agreement of the individual items of AMSTAR was with a mean Kappa of 0.81 [95% CI(0.73, 0.89)] while the OQAQ was 0.74 [95% CI (0.66, 0.83)]. The ICC of the total score for AMSTAR was 0.98 [95% CI (0.97, 0.99), P = 0.000]. Cronbach' alpha was 0.69 [95% CI (0.56, 0.80), P = 0.000]. And ICC of the sum scores of AMSTAR compared with those of the OQAQ was 0.94 [95% CI (0.90, 0.97), P = 0.000].

CONCLUSION

AMSTAR has good agreement, reliability and validity. AMSTAR can be well used in Chinese stomatology and can bring dentists much convenience when assess the methodological quality of systematical reviews on stomatology.

摘要

目的

评估多系统评价评估工具(AMSTAR)用于评价中文口腔医学系统评价的一致性、可靠性和有效性。

方法

于2011年3月1日通过中国生物医学文献数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库和中国知网进行全面电子检索,并手工检索19种口腔医学期刊,以识别已发表的中文口腔医学系统评价。由两名评价者使用综述质量评估问卷(OQAQ)和AMSTAR对每个系统评价进行评估。报告可靠性(11项AMSTAR条目的观察者间Kappa值)、总分的组内相关系数(ICC)以及结构效度(AMSTAR总分与OQAQ总分的ICC比较)。

结果

共有52篇口腔医学系统评价符合纳入标准。AMSTAR各条目评价者间一致性的平均Kappa值为0.81[95%CI(0.73,0.89)],而OQAQ为0.74[95%CI(0.66,0.83)]。AMSTAR总分的ICC为0.98[95%CI(0.97,0.99),P = 0.000]。Cronbach's α为0.69[95%CI(0.56,0.80),P = 0.000]。AMSTAR总分与OQAQ总分的ICC为0.94[95%CI(0.90,0.97),P = 0.000]。

结论

AMSTAR具有良好的一致性、可靠性和有效性。AMSTAR可很好地应用于中文口腔医学领域,在评估口腔医学系统评价的方法学质量时可为牙医带来很大便利。

相似文献

1
[Assessment of reliability and validity of assessment of multiple systematic reviews in Chinese systematic reviews on stomatology].[口腔医学中文系统评价中多个系统评价评估的可靠性与有效性评估]
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2013 Feb;31(1):49-52.
2
AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.AMSTAR是一种用于评估系统评价方法学质量的可靠且有效的测量工具。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1013-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009. Epub 2009 Feb 20.
3
[Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis for reporting quality of Chinese meta-analysis on stomatology].[口腔医学中文Meta分析报告质量的系统评价与Meta分析优先报告条目]
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2011 May;46(5):257-62.
4
[Methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews correlated to traditional Chinese medicine published in China].[中国发表的与中医相关的系统评价的方法学质量评估]
Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2011 Mar;31(3):402-6.
5
Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.使用 AMSTAR 和 R-AMSTAR 比较神经病理性疼痛系统评价方法学质量评分。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 May 8;18(1):37. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0493-y.
6
Reliability and External Validity of AMSTAR in Assessing Quality of TCM Systematic Reviews.AMSTAR 在评价中医系统评价质量中的可靠性和外部有效性。
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012;2012:732195. doi: 10.1155/2012/732195. Epub 2012 Feb 16.
7
External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR).用于评估系统评价的测量工具(AMSTAR)的外部验证
PLoS One. 2007 Dec 26;2(12):e1350. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001350.
8
Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties.系统评价发现 AMSTAR 具有良好的测量特性,但 R(修订)-AMSTAR 则不然。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 May;68(5):574-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.009. Epub 2014 Dec 30.
9
Inter-rater reliability of AMSTAR is dependent on the pair of reviewers.AMSTAR的评分者间信度取决于评审者对。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Jul 11;17(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0380-y.
10
Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature.骨科文献中系统评价的报告和方法学质量。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jun 5;95(11):e771-7. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00597.

引用本文的文献

1
Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of meta-analyses of observational studies published in Chinese journals.中国期刊发表的观察性研究的Meta分析的流行病学、质量及报告特征
BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 7;5(12):e008066. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008066.
2
The influence of context on the effectiveness of hospital quality improvement strategies: a review of systematic reviews.背景对医院质量改进策略有效性的影响:系统评价的综述
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Jul 22;15:277. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0906-0.