Zhu Yingbo, Fan Lin, Zhang Han, Wang Meijuan, Mei Xinchun, Hou Jiaojiao, Shi Zhongyong, Shuai Yu, Shen Yuan
Department of Psychiatry, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 23;11(6):e0157808. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157808. eCollection 2016.
The quality of meta-analyses (MAs) on depression remains uninvestigated.
To assess the overall reporting and methodological qualities of MAs on depression and to explore potential factors influencing both qualities.
MAs investigating epidemiology and interventions for depression published in the most recent year (2014-2015) were selected from PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library. The characteristics of the included studies were collected and the total and per-item quality scores of the included studies were calculated based on the two checklists. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were used to explore the potential factors influencing the quality of the articles.
A total of 217 MAs from 74 peer-reviewed journals were included. The mean score of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was 23.0 of 27 and mean score of Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was 8.3 of 11. Items assessing registration and protocol (14.2%, 37/217) in PRISMA and item requiring a full list of included and excluded studies (16.1%, 40/217) in AMSTAR had poorer adherences than other items. The MAs that included only RCTs, pre-registered, had five more authors or authors from Cochrane groups and the MAs found negative results had better reporting and methodological qualities.
The reporting and methodological qualities of MAs on depression remained to be improved. Design of included studies, characteristics of authors and pre-registration in PROSPERO database are important factors influencing quality of MAs in the field of depression.
关于抑郁症的Meta分析（MAs）质量尚未得到研究。
评估抑郁症Meta分析的整体报告质量和方法学质量，并探讨影响这两种质量的潜在因素。
从PubMed、EMBASE、PsycINFO和Cochrane图书馆中选取最近一年（2014 - 2015年）发表的关于抑郁症流行病学和干预措施的Meta分析。收集纳入研究的特征，并根据两个清单计算纳入研究的总分和每项质量得分。采用单因素和多因素线性回归分析来探讨影响文章质量的潜在因素。
共纳入了来自74种同行评审期刊的217篇Meta分析。系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）平均得分为27分中的23.0分，多项系统评价评估（AMSTAR）平均得分为11分中的8.3分。PRISMA中评估注册和方案的项目（14.2%，37/217）以及AMSTAR中要求列出完整的纳入和排除研究清单的项目（16.1%，40/217）的依从性比其他项目差。仅纳入随机对照试验、预先注册、有五名以上作者或来自Cochrane小组的作者以及得出阴性结果的Meta分析具有更好的报告质量和方法学质量。
抑郁症Meta分析的报告质量和方法学质量仍有待提高。纳入研究的设计、作者特征以及在PROSPERO数据库中的预先注册是影响抑郁症领域Meta分析质量的重要因素。
