报告元流行病学方法学研究的指南。
Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research.
作者信息
Murad Mohammad Hassan, Wang Zhen
机构信息
Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
出版信息
Evid Based Med. 2017 Aug;22(4):139-142. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713. Epub 2017 Jul 12.
Abstract
Published research should be reported to evidence users with clarity and transparency that facilitate optimal appraisal and use of evidence and allow replication by other researchers. Guidelines for such reporting are available for several types of studies but not for meta-epidemiological methodology studies. Meta-epidemiological studies adopt a systematic review or meta-analysis approach to examine the impact of certain characteristics of clinical studies on the observed effect and provide empirical evidence for hypothesised associations. The unit of analysis in meta-epidemiological studies is a study, not a patient. The outcomes of meta-epidemiological studies are usually not clinical outcomes. In this guideline, we adapt items from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) to fit the context of meta-epidemiological studies.
摘要
已发表的研究应清晰、透明地报告给证据使用者，以促进对证据的最佳评估和使用，并允许其他研究人员进行重复研究。针对几种类型的研究有此类报告指南，但对于元流行病学方法学研究却没有。元流行病学研究采用系统评价或荟萃分析方法，以检验临床研究的某些特征对观察到的效应的影响，并为假设的关联提供实证证据。元流行病学研究的分析单位是一项研究，而非一名患者。元流行病学研究的结果通常不是临床结果。在本指南中，我们对系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）中的条目进行了调整，以适应元流行病学研究的背景。
相似文献
1
Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research.报告元流行病学方法学研究的指南。
Evid Based Med. 2017 Aug;22(4):139-142. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713. Epub 2017 Jul 12.
2
Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.评价系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目（PRISMA）声明及其扩展的采用和影响：范围综述。
Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 19;6(1):263. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8.
3
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.系统评价和荟萃分析议定书的首选报告项目（PRISMA-P）2015：详细说明和解释。
BMJ. 2015 Jan 2;350:g7647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647.
4
Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol.评价 PROSPERO 记录特征对非 Cochrane 系统评价最终发表的预测作用：一项meta 流行病学研究方案。
Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 9;7(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0709-6.
5
PRISMA 2020 statement: What's new and the importance of reporting guidelines.PRISMA 2020 声明：新内容和报告指南的重要性。
Int J Surg. 2021 Apr;88:105918. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105918. Epub 2021 Mar 29.
6
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.《系统评价与Meta分析优先报告条目声明》：针对评估卫生保健干预措施的研究的报告规范解释与阐述
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):W65-94. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136. Epub 2009 Jul 20.
7
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.用于报告评估卫生保健干预措施的研究的系统评价和荟萃分析的PRISMA声明：解释与详述
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006. Epub 2009 Jul 23.
8
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.PRISMA 2020 声明：系统评价报告的更新指南。
Int J Surg. 2021 Apr;88:105906. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906. Epub 2021 Mar 29.
9
The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review.诊断研究中荟萃分析报告质量的评估：系统评价。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Dec 9;11:163. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-163.
10
Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration.扩展以公平为重点的系统评价的 PRISMA 声明（PRISMA-E 2012）：解释和说明。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:68-89. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.09.001. Epub 2015 Sep 5.
引用本文的文献
1
The Evolution of Randomized Clinical Trial Designs to Assess Therapeutics in Alzheimer Disease.评估阿尔茨海默病治疗方法的随机临床试验设计的演变
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Aug 1;8(8):e2529665. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.29665.
2
Factors associated with women authorship over 25 years in high-impact critical care randomized controlled trials: the pipeline is still leaking.25年来高影响力重症监护随机对照试验中与女性作者身份相关的因素：输送渠道仍在漏损。
Crit Care. 2025 Aug 28;29(1):388. doi: 10.1186/s13054-025-05627-w.
3
4
Research without prior consent procedure and intervention effect on mortality in critical care: a meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials.重症监护中未经事先同意程序的研究及其对死亡率的干预效果：一项随机对照试验的元流行病学研究
Crit Care. 2025 Jul 24;29(1):323. doi: 10.1186/s13054-025-05480-x.
5
Survival-inferred fragility of statistical significance in phase III oncology trials.III期肿瘤试验中具有统计学意义的生存推断脆弱性
NPJ Precis Oncol. 2025 Jul 24;9(1):256. doi: 10.1038/s41698-025-01024-2.
6
Reproducibility of statistically significant phase III oncology trials: An In Silico meta-epidemiological analysis.具有统计学意义的III期肿瘤学试验的可重复性：一项计算机模拟的meta-流行病学分析。
Eur J Cancer. 2025 Jul 4;226:115596. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115596.
7
Racial, ethnic, sex, and age representation in clinical trials of radiopharmaceutical tumor therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.放射性药物肿瘤治疗临床试验中的种族、族裔、性别和年龄代表性：一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Cancer. 2025 Jul 1;25(1):1092. doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-14527-9.
8
Assessing the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials in hip and knee arthroplasty: A methodological review.评估髋关节和膝关节置换术随机对照试验的统计脆弱性：方法学综述。
J Orthop. 2025 Jun 4;69:216-221. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2025.05.065. eCollection 2025 Nov.
9
Adherence to PRISMA 2020 statement assessed through the expanded checklist in systematic reviews of interventions: A meta-epidemiological study.通过干预措施系统评价中的扩展清单评估对PRISMA 2020声明的依从性：一项元流行病学研究。
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 May 23;2(5):e12074. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12074. eCollection 2024 May.
10
Mechanical ventilation core outcome set uptake in Cochrane systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study.Cochrane系统评价中机械通气核心结局集的应用：一项横断面研究。
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 Jan 10;2(1):e12038. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12038. eCollection 2024 Jan.
本文引用的文献
1
Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect.在缺乏单一效应估计值的情况下对证据的确定性进行评级。
Evid Based Med. 2017 Jun;22(3):85-87. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110668. Epub 2017 Mar 20.
2
Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study.一项元流行病学研究表明，发表在高影响力期刊上的大多数系统评价都未对研究方案进行注册。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Apr;84:54-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.008. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
3
Randomized trials addressing a similar question are commonly published after a trial stopped early for benefit.针对类似问题的随机试验通常在提前因获益而停止后发布。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Feb;82:12-19. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.10.006. Epub 2016 Nov 8.
4
Meta-epidemiological study: a step-by-step approach by using R.Meta流行病学研究：使用R语言的逐步方法。
J Evid Based Med. 2016 May;9(2):91-97. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12191.
5
Early studies reported extreme findings with large variability: a meta-epidemiologic study in the field of endocrinology.早期研究报告了极端的研究结果，且差异很大：内分泌学领域的一项元流行病学研究。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Apr;72:27-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.10.015. Epub 2015 Nov 10.
6
How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature.如何阅读系统评价和荟萃分析并将结果应用于患者护理：医学文献的用户指南。
JAMA. 2014 Jul;312(2):171-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.5559.
7
Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies.临床试验中因患者未设盲导致的偏倚。对将患者随机分为设盲和未设盲子研究的试验进行的系统评价。
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;43(4):1272-83. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu115. Epub 2014 May 30.
8
Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses.评价发表的系统评价和荟萃分析的质量对首选报告项目的系统评价和荟萃分析 (PRISMA) 声明的认可。
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 26;8(12):e83138. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083138. eCollection 2013.
9
A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature.系统评价卫生保健文献报告规范的依从性。
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013 May 6;6:169-88. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S43952. Print 2013.
10
Small studies may overestimate the effect sizes in critical care meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study.小型研究可能高估了重症监护荟萃分析中的效应量：一项元流行病学研究。
Crit Care. 2013 Jan 9;17(1):R2. doi: 10.1186/cc11919.
Zotero 插件