Gugiu P Cristian
Quantitative Research, Evaluation, and Measurement Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Eval Program Plann. 2015 Feb;48:149-59. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.08.003. Epub 2014 Aug 19.
Despite more than 30 years of effort that has been dedicated to the improvement of grading systems for evaluating the quality of research study designs considerable shortcomings continue. These shortcomings include the failure to define key terms, provide a comprehensive list of design flaws, demonstrate the reliability of such grading systems, properly value non-randomized controlled trials, and develop theoretically-derived systems for penalizing and promoting the evidence generated by a study. Consequently, in light of the importance of grading guidelines in evidence-based medicine, steps must be taken to remedy these deficiencies. This article presents two methods--a grading system and a measure of methodological bias--for evaluating the quality of evidence produced by an efficacy study.
尽管为改进用于评估研究设计质量的分级系统付出了30多年的努力，但仍存在相当多的不足之处。这些不足包括未能定义关键术语、提供设计缺陷的完整列表、证明此类分级系统的可靠性、合理评估非随机对照试验，以及开发基于理论的系统来惩罚和推广研究产生的证据。因此，鉴于分级指南在循证医学中的重要性，必须采取措施弥补这些缺陷。本文提出了两种方法——一种分级系统和一种方法学偏倚度量——用于评估疗效研究产生的证据质量。
