Zhang Juxia, Wang Jiancheng, Han Lin, Cao Xin, Shields Linda
Nursing Department, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Institute of Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Nurs Outlook. 2017 Jul-Aug;65(4):380-391. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2016.11.004. Epub 2016 Nov 24.
The number of systematic reviews (SRs) of nursing interventions is increasing in China. Authors of such studies are encouraged to use a risk of bias tool for assessing individual studies. Therefore, it is important to know how these tools have been applied in SRs in Chinese nursing.
The purpose of the study is to examine risk of bias tools used by Chinese nursing researchers to assess the quality of individual studies included in SRs of nursing interventions.
We searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Journal Full-Text Database, Chinese Academic Journal Full-Text Database, and Wanfang Database. Each relevant review found was subjected to quality assessment, data synthesis, and comprehensively described.
Two hundred eight SRs were identified, most (94.7%) of which used the words "systematic review" or "meta-analysis" in their titles. Most used quality assessment rather than risk of bias as their major method to gauge quality; 7.6% reported on six domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Only four provided a risk of bias graph/summary figure.
Many SRs of nursing interventions are published in Chinese journals, and their assessment of risk of bias is usually either lacking or incomplete, potentially producing misleading results. This may also be the case in other countries. Assessment of risk of bias in SRs is a requisite. Authors who systematically review nursing literature should follow the latest Cochrane Collaboration Handbook.
中国护理干预系统评价（SRs）的数量在不断增加。此类研究的作者被鼓励使用偏倚风险工具来评估单个研究。因此，了解这些工具在中国护理SRs中的应用方式很重要。
本研究旨在调查中国护理研究人员用于评估护理干预SRs中单个研究质量的偏倚风险工具。
我们检索了中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、中国学术期刊全文数据库和万方数据库。对每一项检索到的相关综述进行质量评估、数据综合并进行全面描述。
共识别出208篇SRs，其中大多数（94.7%）在标题中使用了“系统评价”或“荟萃分析”字样。大多数使用质量评估而非偏倚风险作为衡量质量的主要方法；7.6%报告了Cochrane偏倚风险工具的六个领域。只有四项提供了偏倚风险图/汇总图。
许多护理干预的SRs发表在中国期刊上，其对偏倚风险的评估通常缺乏或不完整，可能产生误导性结果。其他国家可能也是如此。对SRs中的偏倚风险进行评估是必要的。系统评价护理文献的作者应遵循最新的Cochrane协作手册。
