• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

系统评价和荟萃分析中护理干预慢性阻塞性肺疾病的报告和方法学质量 - 系统评价。

The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - A systematic review.

机构信息

Department of Science and Education, Zibo Municipal Hospital, Zibo, China.

Department of Standardization Management, Zibo Municipal Hospital, Zibo, China.

出版信息

Nurs Open. 2021 May;8(3):1489-1500. doi: 10.1002/nop2.767. Epub 2021 Jan 19.

DOI:10.1002/nop2.767
PMID:33465288
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8046131/
Abstract

AIMS

The aim of this review was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on nursing interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to determine potential factors that predict high quality.

DESIGN

The review is a quantitative systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

REVIEW METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in three databases for SRs/MAs published up to 6 May 2020. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR checklist were used to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality.

RESULTS

A total of 130 articles published between 1996-2020 from 69 journals were included in this review. Multivariate regression analyses demonstrated that the following factors were related to the higher reporting quality of included articles: having a protocol or registration and being published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews including meta-analyses, number of authors >5, number of pages and having protocol or registration were related to higher methodological quality. A strong linear correlation (r = 0.860) was detected between the scores of PRISMA and AMSTAR.

CONCLUSION

A significant number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with COPD show suboptimal reporting and poor methodology quality. The use of PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines in conducting, reading, reviewing and editing systematic reviews and meta-analyses is recommended to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

IMPACT

The findings of this review can provide references for health workers and health policy makers to evaluate and apply evidence-based knowledge. Additionally, such high-quality systematic reviews/meta-analyses can guide medical and health practice.

摘要

目的

本综述旨在评估慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者护理干预措施的系统评价和荟萃分析(SR/MAs)的报告和方法学质量,并确定预测高质量的潜在因素。

设计

本综述为定量系统评价。

资料来源

PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 系统评价数据库。

综述方法

在三个数据库中全面检索截至 2020 年 5 月 6 日发表的 SR/MAs 文献。采用 PRISMA 声明和 AMSTAR 清单评估报告和方法学质量。

结果

本综述共纳入 69 种期刊发表的 1996 年至 2020 年间的 130 篇文章。多变量回归分析表明,以下因素与纳入文章的较高报告质量相关:有方案或注册以及发表在 Cochrane 系统评价数据库上。包含荟萃分析、作者人数>5、页数和方案或注册的系统评价与较高的方法学质量相关。PRISMA 和 AMSTAR 的评分之间存在很强的线性相关性(r=0.860)。

结论

大量 COPD 患者护理干预措施的系统评价和荟萃分析显示报告和方法学质量欠佳。建议在进行、阅读、评价和编辑系统评价和荟萃分析时使用 PRISMA 和 AMSTAR 指南,以提高系统评价和荟萃分析的质量。

影响

本综述的结果可以为卫生工作者和卫生政策制定者提供参考,以评估和应用循证知识。此外,高质量的系统评价/荟萃分析可以指导医疗保健实践。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba78/8046131/ef722001c7fe/NOP2-8-1489-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba78/8046131/ded20fe9f8e9/NOP2-8-1489-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba78/8046131/1c2d0e5fd8f9/NOP2-8-1489-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba78/8046131/859fbf252de2/NOP2-8-1489-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba78/8046131/ef722001c7fe/NOP2-8-1489-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba78/8046131/ded20fe9f8e9/NOP2-8-1489-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba78/8046131/1c2d0e5fd8f9/NOP2-8-1489-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba78/8046131/859fbf252de2/NOP2-8-1489-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba78/8046131/ef722001c7fe/NOP2-8-1489-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - A systematic review.系统评价和荟萃分析中护理干预慢性阻塞性肺疾病的报告和方法学质量 - 系统评价。
Nurs Open. 2021 May;8(3):1489-1500. doi: 10.1002/nop2.767. Epub 2021 Jan 19.
2
Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Nursing Interventions in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease: General Implications of the Findings.阿尔茨海默病患者护理干预的系统评价和荟萃分析的报告和方法学质量:研究结果的普遍意义。
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2019 May;51(3):308-316. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12462. Epub 2019 Feb 25.
3
Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer's disease before and after PRISMA introduction.探讨 PRISMA 引入前后针对阿尔茨海默病患者的护理干预的系统评价和 Meta 分析的报告质量。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 29;18(1):154. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0622-7.
4
Methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the association between sleep duration and hypertension.系统评价和荟萃分析在睡眠时间与高血压关联中的方法学和报告质量评估。
Syst Rev. 2024 Aug 6;13(1):211. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02622-0.
5
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
6
Methodological and reporting quality assessment of network meta-analyses in anesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-epidemiological study.方法学和报告质量评估在麻醉学中的网络荟萃分析:系统评价和荟萃流行病学研究。
Can J Anaesth. 2023 Sep;70(9):1461-1473. doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02510-6. Epub 2023 Jul 8.
7
Completeness of reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery.血管外科学系统评价和荟萃分析中的报告完整性。
J Vasc Surg. 2023 Dec;78(6):1550-1558.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.04.009. Epub 2023 Apr 15.
8
Breathing Exercises in the Treatment of COPD: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.呼吸练习在 COPD 治疗中的应用:系统评价综述。
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2022 Dec 7;17:3075-3085. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S385855. eCollection 2022.
9
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
10
Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.烧伤护理管理系统评价的方法学质量和报告标准较差。
Int Wound J. 2017 Oct;14(5):754-763. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12692. Epub 2016 Dec 18.

引用本文的文献

1
The methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using AMSTAR2.使用AMSTAR2对慢性前列腺炎/慢性盆腔疼痛综合征的系统评价/荟萃分析进行方法学质量评估。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Nov 27;23(1):281. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02095-0.
2
TFOS Lifestyle - Evidence quality report: Advancing the evaluation and synthesis of research evidence.TFOS 生活方式 - 证据质量报告:推进研究证据的评估和综合。
Ocul Surf. 2023 Apr;28:200-212. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2023.04.009. Epub 2023 Apr 11.
3
Prevalence and methodological quality of systematic reviews in Korean medical journals.

本文引用的文献

1
Methodological and reporting quality in non-Cochrane systematic review updates could be improved: a comparative study.非 Cochrane 系统评价更新中的方法学和报告质量可以得到改善:一项比较研究。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Mar;119:36-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.012. Epub 2019 Nov 20.
2
Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Nursing Interventions in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease: General Implications of the Findings.阿尔茨海默病患者护理干预的系统评价和荟萃分析的报告和方法学质量:研究结果的普遍意义。
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2019 May;51(3):308-316. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12462. Epub 2019 Feb 25.
3
韩国医学期刊中系统评价的发表率和方法学质量。
Epidemiol Health. 2023;45:e2023017. doi: 10.4178/epih.e2023017. Epub 2023 Feb 6.
4
A systematic evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy.对发表于胃肠内镜领域的荟萃分析的方法学和报告质量的系统评价。
Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb;37(2):807-816. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09570-7. Epub 2022 Sep 1.
5
Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.系统评价中数据提取的准备、预试验及实施方法的报告:对152篇Cochrane及非Cochrane综述样本的分析
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Nov 6;21(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01438-z.
The effects of the PRISMA statement to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for patients with heart failure.
PRISMA声明对改善心力衰竭患者护理干预措施的系统评价和荟萃分析的实施与报告的影响。
Int J Nurs Pract. 2019 Jun;25(3):e12729. doi: 10.1111/ijn.12729. Epub 2019 Feb 20.
4
Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer's disease before and after PRISMA introduction.探讨 PRISMA 引入前后针对阿尔茨海默病患者的护理干预的系统评价和 Meta 分析的报告质量。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 29;18(1):154. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0622-7.
5
Active mind-body movement therapies as an adjunct to or in comparison with pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.主动身心运动疗法作为慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者肺康复的辅助疗法或与之对比的疗法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 10;10(10):CD012290. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012290.pub2.
6
Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Endodontics.牙髓病学系统评价和荟萃分析的方法学和报告质量。
J Endod. 2018 Jun;44(6):903-913. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.02.013. Epub 2018 Mar 27.
7
Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.前瞻性注册与系统评价的总体报告和方法学质量之间的关联:一项meta 流行病学研究。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jan;93:45-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.012. Epub 2017 Oct 31.
8
Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature.泌尿外科文献中荟萃分析的报告及方法学质量
PeerJ. 2017 Apr 19;5:e3129. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3129. eCollection 2017.
9
A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery.小儿外科系统评价与荟萃分析的实施质量和报告质量的系统评价
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 6;12(4):e0175213. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175213. eCollection 2017.
10
Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.烧伤护理管理系统评价的方法学质量和报告标准较差。
Int Wound J. 2017 Oct;14(5):754-763. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12692. Epub 2016 Dec 18.