Institutional Research and Analytics, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Anaesthesia. 2016 Aug;71(8):955-68. doi: 10.1111/anae.13520.
The validity of primary study results included in systematic reviews plays an important role in drawing conclusions about intervention effectiveness and carries implications for clinical decision-making. We evaluated the prevalence of methodological quality and risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews published in the five highest-ranked anaesthesia journals since 2007. The initial PubMed search yielded 315 citations, and our final sample after screening consisted of 207 systematic reviews. One hundred and seventy-four reviews conducted methodological quality/risk of bias analyses. The Jadad scale was most frequently used. Forty-four of the 83 reviews that included high risk of bias studies re-analysed their data omitting these trials: 20 showed differences in pooled effect estimates. Reviews containing a greater number of primary studies evaluated quality less frequently than smaller reviews. Overall, the majority of reviews evaluated bias; however, many applied questionable methods. Given the potential effects of bias on summary outcomes, greater attention is warranted.
系统评价中纳入的原始研究结果的有效性对于得出干预效果的结论以及对临床决策具有重要意义。我们评估了自 2007 年以来发表在五个排名最高的麻醉学期刊中的系统评价的方法学质量和偏倚风险评估的流行程度。最初的 PubMed 搜索产生了 315 条引文，经过筛选后，我们的最终样本包括 207 项系统评价。174 项综述进行了方法学质量/偏倚风险分析。Jadad 量表使用最频繁。在 83 项包含高偏倚风险研究的综述中，有 44 项重新分析了排除这些试验的数据：其中 20 项显示了汇总效应估计值的差异。包含更多原始研究的综述比小型综述更不频繁地评估质量。总体而言，大多数综述评估了偏倚；但是，许多应用了有问题的方法。鉴于偏倚对汇总结果的潜在影响，需要更加重视。
