主要骨科期刊中荟萃分析的质量：系统评价。
Quality of meta-analyses in major leading orthopedics journals: A systematic review.
机构信息
Graduate Management Unit, Changhai hospital affiliated to the Second Military Medical University, Changhai road, 200433 Shanghai, PR, China.
Department of Orthopedics, Changhai hospital affiliated to the Second Military Medical University, Changhai road, 200433 Shanghai, PR, China.
出版信息
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Dec;103(8):1141-1146. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.08.009. Epub 2017 Sep 18.
BACKGROUND
Meta-Analyses are the basis of professional and healthcare agencies recommendations and have a growing importance. Quality of meta-analyses has been investigated in some medical fields but to our best knowledge this issue remains under investigated in orthopedics. Therefore, we performed a systematic analysis to: 1) after the introduction of PRISMA statement as a comprehensive guideline and the use of the AMSTAR tool as the standard for sufficient review methodology, has the quality of MAs improved because of that? 2) have some general characteristics influenced the quality of MAs (country, funding source, number of authors)?
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We systematically searched the meta-analyses in the top four journals with the impact factor (2015) as following: JBJS, Osteoarthritis Cartilage Arthroscopy and Clin Orthop Relat Res from 2005 to 2008 and from 2012 to 2015. Likewise from 2012-2015, we also analyzed the meta-analyses from OTSR. Characteristics were extracted based on the PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR tool. Country, number of authors, funding source were also extracted.
RESULTS
A total of 154 meta-analyses were included in the present study. Score with PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR checklist were 20.86±3.04 out of a maximum of 27 and 7.86±1.55 out of a maximum of 11. The best journal was OTSR according to the PRISMA (23.06±1.92) and AMSTAR (9.13±0.87) scores. And the worst journal was Clin Orthop Relat Res according to the PRISMA score (19.4±2.70) and JBJS according to the AMSTAR score (6.78±1.65). Twelve items showed significant difference in the PRISMA statement, and five items in the AMSTAR checklist. Integral score of PRISMA statement and AMSTAR checklist has a significant difference between 2005-2008 and 2012-2015. The MAs reported from U.S. (56, 36.4%) were more than any other region in the world. And the MAs published by Asia/Oceania increased remarkably between these two period times [from (4, 10.8%) to (45, 38.5%)].
CONCLUSION
This study showed that methodological reporting quality of meta-analyses in the major orthopedics journals has improved after the publication of the PRISMA statement.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III.
背景
荟萃分析是专业和医疗保健机构建议的基础，其重要性日益增加。一些医学领域已经对荟萃分析的质量进行了研究，但据我们所知，这一问题在骨科领域仍未得到充分研究。因此，我们进行了一项系统分析，以：1）在 PRISMA 声明作为全面指南以及 AMSTAR 工具作为充分审查方法标准引入之后，荟萃分析的质量是否因此得到了提高？2）一些一般特征（国家、资金来源、作者数量）是否影响荟萃分析的质量？
材料和方法
我们系统地搜索了影响因子（2015 年）最高的四个期刊（JBJS、Osteoarthritis Cartilage Arthroscopy 和 Clin Orthop Relat Res）中的荟萃分析：2005 年至 2008 年和 2012 年至 2015 年的研究。同样从 2012 年至 2015 年，我们还分析了 OTSR 的荟萃分析。特征是根据 PRISMA 声明和 AMSTAR 工具提取的。还提取了国家、作者数量和资金来源。
结果
本研究共纳入 154 项荟萃分析。PRISMA 声明和 AMSTAR 检查表的最高分为 27 分和 11 分，分别为 20.86±3.04 分和 7.86±1.55 分。根据 PRISMA（23.06±1.92）和 AMSTAR（9.13±0.87）评分，最佳期刊是 OTSR。根据 PRISMA 评分，最差的期刊是 Clin Orthop Relat Res（19.4±2.70），根据 AMSTAR 评分，最差的期刊是 JBJS（6.78±1.65）。PRISMA 声明中有 12 项显示出显著差异，AMSTAR 检查表中有 5 项。PRISMA 声明和 AMSTAR 检查表的积分在 2005-2008 年和 2012-2015 年之间存在显著差异。来自美国（56 个，36.4%）的荟萃分析数量多于世界其他任何地区。这两个时期，亚洲/大洋洲发表的荟萃分析数量显著增加[从（4 个，10.8%）到（45 个，38.5%）]。
结论
本研究表明，在 PRISMA 声明发表后，主要骨科期刊荟萃分析的方法学报告质量有所提高。
证据水平
III 级。
Zotero 插件