Suppr超能文献

评价元研究中研究的质量:对最重要的质量评估工具的综述/指南。

Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools.

机构信息

Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

National Research Council, Neuroscience Institute, Padova, Italy.

出版信息

Pharm Stat. 2021 Jan;20(1):185-195. doi: 10.1002/pst.2068. Epub 2020 Sep 15.

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses pool data from individual studies to generate a higher level of evidence to be evaluated by guidelines. These reviews ultimately guide clinicians and stakeholders in health-related decisions. However, the informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Moreover, beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. Hence, quality of meta-research projects also affects evidence synthesis reliability. In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Specifically, the tools considered in this work are the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), the Jadad scale, the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB2) for randomized controlled trials, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2), and AMSTAR-PLUS for meta-analyses. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN?: The informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. WHAT IS NEW?: In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. POTENTIAL IMPACT: This overview serves as a starting point and a brief guide to identify and understand the main and most frequently used tools for assessing the quality of studies included in meta-research. The authors here share their experience in publishing several meta-research-related articles covering different areas of medical sciences.

摘要

系统评价和荟萃分析从个体研究中汇集数据,以生成更高水平的证据,由指南进行评估。这些综述最终指导临床医生和利益相关者做出与健康相关的决策。然而,证据综合的信息性和质量本质上取决于纳入元研究项目的质量。此外,除了纳入的个体研究的质量外,只有与系统评价和荟萃分析本身相关的方法正确的过程,才能产生可靠和有效的证据综合。因此,元研究项目的质量也会影响证据综合的可靠性。在这篇综述中,作者综合了一些最常用来评估个体研究、系统评价和荟萃分析质量的工具的优缺点和主要特征。具体来说,本工作中考虑的工具包括针对观察性研究的纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)和加强观察性研究报告的标准(STROBE)、临床试验的 CONSORT 报告标准、Jadad 量表、随机对照试验的 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 2(RoB2)、系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)和评估多个系统评价 2(AMSTAR2),以及荟萃分析的 AMSTAR-PLUS。

已知的内容

证据综合的信息性和质量本质上取决于纳入元研究项目的质量。除了纳入的个体研究的质量外,只有与系统评价和荟萃分析本身相关的方法正确的过程,才能产生可靠和有效的证据综合。

新内容

在这篇综述中,作者综合了一些最常用来评估个体研究、系统评价和荟萃分析质量的工具的优缺点和主要特征。

潜在影响

这篇综述为识别和理解纳入元研究的研究质量评估的主要和最常用工具提供了一个起点和简要指南。作者在这里分享了他们在发表几篇涉及医学科学不同领域的元研究相关文章方面的经验。

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