Suppr超能文献

眼科系统评价与 PRISMA 声明的一致性。

Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement.

机构信息

Nottingham University Hospital, Trent NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, UK.

Guy's King's and St. Thomas' School of Medical Education, London, UK.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 28;17(1):178. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0450-1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important methods to summarize published research. Studies of ophthalmology may present additional challenges because of their potentially complex study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on topics in ophthalmology to determine compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. We assessed articles published between 2010 and 2015 in the five major relevant journals with the highest impact factors.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2015 in the following 5 major ophthalmology journals: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Survey of Ophthalmology. The screening, identification, and scoring of articles were independently performed by two teams, and the results were submitted to statistical analysis to determine medians, ranges, and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 115 articles were included. The median compliance was 15 out of 27 items (56%), the range was 5-26 (26-96%), and the inter-quartile range was 10 (37%). Compliance was highest in items related to the 'description of rationale' (item 3, 100%) and sequentially lower in 'the general interpretation of results' (item 26, 96%) and 'the inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract' (item 2, 90%). Compliance was poorest in the items 'indication of review protocol and registration' (item 5, 9%), 'specification of risk of biases that may affect the cumulative evidence' (item 15, 24%), and 'description of clear objectives in the introduction' (item 4, 26%).

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology should be significantly improved. While we recommend the use of the PRISMA criteria as a guideline before journal submission, additional research aimed at identifying potential barriers to compliance may be required to improve compliance with PRISMA guidelines.

摘要

背景

系统评价和荟萃分析越来越成为总结已发表研究的重要方法。由于眼科研究可能具有复杂的设计,因此这类研究可能会带来额外的挑战。本研究旨在评估眼科主题系统评价和荟萃分析的报告质量,以确定其对 PRISMA 指南的遵循情况。我们评估了 2010 年至 2015 年间在影响因子最高的 5 种主要相关期刊上发表的文章。

方法

在以下 5 种主要的眼科期刊(《视网膜与眼科学进展》、《眼科学》、《眼科档案》、《美国眼科学杂志》和《眼科学调查》)中检索了 2010 年 1 月至 2015 年 12 月发表的系统评价。由两个团队独立进行文章筛选、识别和评分,结果提交给统计分析,以确定中位数、范围和 95%CI。

结果

共纳入 115 篇文章。27 项标准中,中位数为 15 项(56%),范围为 5-26 项(26-96%),四分位间距为 10 项(37%)。与“描述基本原理”(项目 3,100%)相关的项目遵守率最高,而与“一般解释结果”(项目 26,96%)和“在摘要中包含结构化总结”(项目 2,90%)相关的项目依次降低。遵守率最差的项目为“指明综述方案和注册”(项目 5,9%)、“说明可能影响累积证据的偏倚风险”(项目 15,24%)和“在引言中描述明确的目标”(项目 4,26%)。

结论

眼科系统评价和荟萃分析的报告质量应得到显著提高。虽然我们建议在提交期刊前使用 PRISMA 标准作为指南,但可能需要进一步研究确定遵守 PRISMA 指南的潜在障碍,以提高对 PRISMA 指南的遵守率。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a1ab/5745614/c623f00f1b3c/12874_2017_450_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验