• 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

[中文期刊发表的肾病相关Meta分析的标准化研究]

[A standardization study of Meta-analyses on nephropathy published in Chinese journals].

作者信息

Liu Jin-yan, Zhao Yu-liang, Zhou Qing-hua, Wu Yu-mei, Zhou Sheng-guo, Zhang Ling, Fu Ping

机构信息

Division of Nephrology, West China Hospital, Chengdu 610041, China. Email:

出版信息

Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi. 2013 Oct;52(10):833-7.

PMID:24378060
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the standardization of Meta-analyses on nephropathy published in Chinese journals.

METHODS

By searching in WANFANG, VIP, CNKI databases and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) as well as related Chinese journals, eligible Meta-analyses were enrolled and analyzed according to the PRISMA(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement and the MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) Checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 217 Meta-analyses were enrolled with 166 on randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 51 on observational studies. Based on the PRSIMA Statement, of the 166 Meta-analyses on RCT, 51.8% (86 papers) were found with the complete research hypothesis, 13.9% (23) with the literature screening flow chart, 15.7% (26) with the subgroup analysis, 53.0% (88) with the publication bias analysis and 28.3% (47) with the sensitivity analysis. According to the MOOSE Checklist, of the 51 Meta-analyses on observational studies, only 9.8% (5) had done the statistical stability calculation, 54.9% (28) with the outlook of application, 45.1% (23) with the limitation of the study, 2.0% (1) with the quantitative analysis on potential bias and 17.6% (9) with the suggestion for future studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Unclear hypothesis, limited methodological description, lack of in-depth analysis on heterogeneity and bias are the common defects in Meta-analyses published in Chinese journals on nephrology.

摘要

目的

评估发表于中文期刊上的肾病领域Meta分析的规范化程度。

方法

通过检索万方、维普、知网数据库以及中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)和相关中文期刊,纳入符合条件的Meta分析,并依据PRISMA(系统评价与Meta分析优先报告条目)声明和MOOSE(流行病学观察性研究的Meta分析)清单进行分析。

结果

共纳入217篇Meta分析,其中166篇针对随机对照试验(RCT),51篇针对观察性研究。基于PRSIMA声明,在166篇RCT的Meta分析中,51.8%(86篇论文)有完整的研究假设,13.9%(23篇)有文献筛选流程图,15.7%(26篇)有亚组分析,53.0%(88篇)有发表偏倚分析,28.3%(47篇)有敏感性分析。根据MOOSE清单,在51篇观察性研究的Meta分析中,仅9.8%(5篇)进行了统计稳定性计算,54.9%(28篇)有应用前景,45.1%(23篇)有研究局限性,2.0%(1篇)有潜在偏倚的定量分析,17.6%(9篇)有对未来研究的建议。

结论

假设不明确、方法学描述有限、对异质性和偏倚缺乏深入分析是中文期刊发表的肾病领域Meta分析的常见缺陷。

相似文献

1
[A standardization study of Meta-analyses on nephropathy published in Chinese journals].[中文期刊发表的肾病相关Meta分析的标准化研究]
Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi. 2013 Oct;52(10):833-7.
2
[Appraisal of meta-analysis manuscripts on eye diseases published in Chinese journals with QUOROM statement and MOOSE guidelines].[应用QUOROM声明和MOOSE指南对中文期刊发表的眼科疾病Meta分析手稿进行评价]
Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2011 Aug;47(8):732-7.
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
[Quality appraisal of systematic reviews or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine published in Chinese journals].[中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价或Meta分析的质量评价]
Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2007 Apr;27(4):306-11.
5
[Methodological quality of Meta-analyses regarding studies related to genetic association on papers published in Chinese journals].[中文期刊发表的关于基因关联研究的Meta分析的方法学质量]
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2013 Sep;34(9):917-21.
6
Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.基于证据的医学、系统评价以及介入性疼痛管理指南:第6部分。观察性研究的系统评价与荟萃分析
Pain Physician. 2009 Sep-Oct;12(5):819-50.
7
Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study.护理期刊发表的系统评价和荟萃分析对PRISMA声明的认可情况及质量:一项横断面研究
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 7;7(2):e013905. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013905.
8
Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.发表于中文期刊的护理干预系统评价和Meta分析的流行病学、质量及报告特征
Nurs Outlook. 2015 Jul-Aug;63(4):446-455.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.11.020. Epub 2014 Dec 4.
9
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.
10
Reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with a focus on drug safety: an empirical assessment.报告以药物安全为重点的随机对照试验的荟萃分析:一项实证评估。
Clin Trials. 2013;10(3):389-97. doi: 10.1177/1740774513479467. Epub 2013 Mar 18.