Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Evidence-Based Nursing Center, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Mar;119:36-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.012. Epub 2019 Nov 20.
The aim of the study was to compare the methodological and reporting quality of updated systematic reviews (SRs) and original SRs.
We included 30 pairs of non-Cochrane updated and original SRs, identified from a search of PubMed and Embase.com. We used Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to assess methodological quality and Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for reporting quality. Stratified analyses were conducted to compare the differences between updated SRs and original SRs and explore factors that might affect the degree of quality change.
Of the 60 non-Cochrane SRs, only two (3.3%) were of low quality, the remaining 58 (96.7%) were of critical low quality. There were no statistically significant differences in methodological quality between the updated SRs and original SRs, although the compliance rates of eight items of updated SRs were higher than that of original SRs. Updated SRs showed an improvement on 15 PRISMA items, but no items with statistically significant differences. The differences in fully reported AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA items between original SRs and updated SRs were also not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple review characteristics.
The methodological and reporting quality of updated SRs were not improved compared with original SRs, although the quality could be further improved for both updated SRs and original SRs.
本研究旨在比较更新系统评价（SR）和原始 SR 的方法学和报告质量。
我们纳入了从 PubMed 和 Embase.com 检索到的 30 对非 Cochrane 更新和原始 SR。我们使用评估多项系统评价-2（AMSTAR-2）来评估方法学质量，使用系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）来评估报告质量。进行了分层分析，以比较更新 SR 和原始 SR 之间的差异，并探讨可能影响质量变化程度的因素。
在 60 项非 Cochrane SR 中，仅有 2 项（3.3%）质量较低，其余 58 项（96.7%）质量极低。更新 SR 和原始 SR 的方法学质量没有统计学上的显著差异，尽管更新 SR 的八项条目符合率高于原始 SR。更新 SR 在 15 项 PRISMA 条目上有所改进，但没有具有统计学显著差异的条目。在调整多项审查特征后，原始 SR 和更新 SR 之间完全报告的 AMSTAR-2 和 PRISMA 条目的差异也没有统计学意义。
与原始 SR 相比，更新 SR 的方法学和报告质量没有得到改善，尽管更新 SR 和原始 SR 的质量都可以进一步提高。
