Suppr超能文献

阿片类物质使用障碍治疗临床实践指南中引用的系统评价的方法学质量

Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

作者信息

Ross Andrew, Rankin Justin, Beaman Jason, Murray Kelly, Sinnett Philip, Riddle Ross, Haskins Jordan, Vassar Matt

机构信息

Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2017 Aug 3;12(8):e0181927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181927. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

With efforts to combat opioid use disorder, there is an increased interest in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for opioid use disorder treatments. No literature exists examining the quality of systematic reviews used in opioid use disorder CPGs. This study aims to describe the methodological quality and reporting clarity of systematic reviews (SRs) used to create CPGs for opioid use disorder.

METHODS

From June to July 2016 guideline clearinghouses and medical literature databases were searched for relevant CPGs used in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Included CPGs must have been recognized by a national organization. SRs from the reference section of each CPG was scored by using AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews) tool and PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) checklist.

RESULTS

Seventeen CPGs from 2006-2016 were included in the review. From these, 57 unique SRs were extracted. SRS comprised 0.28% to 17.92% of all references found in the CPGs. All SRs obtained moderate or high methodological quality score on the AMSTAR tool. All reviews met at least 70% of PRISMA criteria. In PRISMA, underperforming areas included accurate title labeling, protocol registration, and risk of bias. Underperforming areas in AMSTAR included conflicts of interest, funding, and publication bias. A positive correlation was found between AMSTAR and PRISMA scores (r = .79).

CONCLUSION

Although the SRs in the CPGs were of good quality, there are still areas for improvement. Systematic reviewers should consult PRISMA and AMSTAR when conducting and reporting reviews. It is important for CPG developers to consider methodological quality as a factor when developing CPG recommendations, recognizing that the quality of systematic reviews underpinning guidelines does not necessarily correspond to the quality of the guideline itself.

摘要

引言

随着对抗阿片类药物使用障碍工作的开展,人们对阿片类药物使用障碍治疗的临床实践指南(CPG)的兴趣日益增加。目前尚无文献研究阿片类药物使用障碍CPG中所使用的系统评价的质量。本研究旨在描述用于制定阿片类药物使用障碍CPG的系统评价(SR)的方法学质量和报告清晰度。

方法

2016年6月至7月,在指南资料库和医学文献数据库中搜索用于治疗阿片类药物使用障碍的相关CPG。纳入的CPG必须得到国家组织的认可。使用AMSTAR(一种评估系统评价方法学质量的测量工具)工具和PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)清单对每个CPG参考文献部分的SR进行评分。

结果

本评价纳入了2006年至2016年的17份CPG。从中提取了57篇独特的SR。SR占CPG中所有参考文献的0.28%至17.92%。所有SR在AMSTAR工具上获得了中等或高方法学质量评分。所有评价至少符合70%的PRISMA标准。在PRISMA中,表现不佳的领域包括准确的标题标注、方案注册和偏倚风险。AMSTAR中表现不佳的领域包括利益冲突、资金和发表偏倚。发现AMSTAR和PRISMA评分之间存在正相关(r = 0.79)。

结论

尽管CPG中的SR质量良好,但仍有改进的空间。系统评价者在进行和报告评价时应参考PRISMA和AMSTAR。对于CPG开发者来说,在制定CPG建议时将方法学质量作为一个因素来考虑很重要,要认识到作为指南基础的系统评价的质量不一定与指南本身的质量相对应。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4856/5542448/f17fa801210f/pone.0181927.g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验