Epworth HealthCare, Richmond, VA, Australia.
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Int Wound J. 2017 Oct;14(5):754-763. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12692. Epub 2016 Dec 18.
The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.
烧伤特定系统评价的方法学和报告质量尚未确定。本研究旨在评估烧伤护理管理系统评价的方法学质量。通过计算机检索 Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid EMBASE 和 The Cochrane Library，使用医学主题词和自由词，如“烧伤”、“系统评价”或“meta 分析”，检索与烧伤护理相关的系统评价。通过手工检索 5 种专科期刊，进一步确定其他研究。两名作者独立筛选文献，使用 11 项 AMSTAR 工具评估方法学质量，使用 27 项 PRISMA 清单评估报告质量，并提取和评估方法学质量。确定与方法学和报告质量相关的系统评价特征。描述性统计和线性回归确定了与方法学质量提高相关的特征。共有 60 篇系统评价符合纳入标准。在报告“预先设计”、重复研究选择、灰色文献、纳入/排除研究、发表偏倚和利益冲突的 11 项 AMSTAR 项目中，有 6 项报告的比例低于 50%。在列出的 27 项 PRISMA 项目中，有 13 项报告的比例低于 50%，涉及引言、方法、结果和讨论。多变量分析表明，与更高方法学或报告质量相关的系统评价包括荟萃分析（AMSTAR 回归系数 2.1；95%CI：1.1，3.1；PRISMA 回归系数 6.3；95%CI：3.8，8.7），发表在 Cochrane 图书馆（AMSTAR 回归系数 2.9；95%CI：1.6，4.2；PRISMA 回归系数 6.1；95%CI：3.1，9.2），并纳入随机对照试验（AMSTAR 回归系数 1.4；95%CI：0.4，2.4；PRISMA 回归系数 3.4；95%CI：0.9，5.8）。烧伤护理系统评价的方法学和报告质量需要进一步提高，作者应更加严格地遵守 PRISMA 清单和 AMSTAR 工具。
