Tao Huan, Zhang Yueyuan, Li Qian, Chen Jin
Department of Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Medical School of Medicine/West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Cheng Du, 610041, China.
Department of Respiratory Medicine of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi Medical University, 22 Shuangyong street, Nanning, 530021, China.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2017 Nov;143(11):2245-2256. doi: 10.1007/s00432-017-2516-1. Epub 2017 Sep 5.
To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analysis concerning the predictive value of ERCC1 in platinum chemotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer.
We searched the PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane library, international prospective register of systematic reviews, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang and VIP database for SRs or meta-analysis. The methodological quality of included literatures was evaluated by risk of bias in systematic review (ROBIS) scale.
Nineteen eligible SRs/meta-analysis were included. The most frequently searched databases were EMbase (74%), PubMed, Medline and CNKI. Fifteen SRs did additional retrieval manually, but none of them retrieved the registration platform. 47% described the two-reviewers model in the screening for eligible original articles, and seven SRs described the two reviewers to extract data. In methodological quality assessment, inter-rater reliability Kappa was 0.87 between two reviewers. Research question were well related to all SRs in phase 1 and the eligibility criteria was suitable for each SR, and rated as 'low' risk bias. But the 'high' risk bias existed in all the SRs regarding methods used to identify and/or select studies, and data collection and study appraisal. More than two-third of SRs or meta-analysis were finished with high risk of bias in the synthesis, findings and the final phase.
The study demonstrated poor methodological quality of SRs/meta-analysis assessing the predictive value of ERCC1 in chemotherapy among the NSCLC patients, especially the high performance bias. Registration or publishing the protocol is recommended in future research.
评估关于ERCC1在非小细胞肺癌铂类化疗中预测价值的系统评价（SRs）或荟萃分析的方法学质量。
我们检索了PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane图书馆、国际系统评价前瞻性注册库、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国知网、万方和维普数据库，以查找SRs或荟萃分析。采用系统评价中的偏倚风险（ROBIS）量表评估纳入文献的方法学质量。
纳入了19项合格的SRs/荟萃分析。检索频率最高的数据库是EMbase（74%）、PubMed、Medline和中国知网。15项SRs进行了额外的手工检索，但均未检索到注册平台。47%的研究描述了在筛选合格原始文章时采用双评审员模式，7项SRs描述了两名评审员提取数据。在方法学质量评估中，两名评审员之间的评分者间信度Kappa为0.87。研究问题与所有第1阶段的SRs相关性良好，纳入标准适用于每项SRs，偏倚风险评定为“低”。但在用于识别和/或选择研究、数据收集和研究评估的方法方面，所有SRs均存在“高”偏倚风险。超过三分之二的SRs或荟萃分析在合成、结果和最后阶段存在高偏倚风险。
该研究表明，评估ERCC1在非小细胞肺癌患者化疗中预测价值的SRs/荟萃分析的方法学质量较差，尤其是存在较高的性能偏倚。建议在未来研究中进行注册或公布方案。
