Department of Population Medicine, College of Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.
Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Sleep Med Rev. 2021 Jun;57:101434. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2021.101434. Epub 2021 Jan 24.
An increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have been published in the field of sleep medicine. We evaluated the methodological issues of these SRMAs. A protocol was developed in advance. Three databases were searched from inception to October 2019 for SRMAs published in major academic journals of sleep medicine that assessed healthcare interventions. The AMSTAR 2.0 instrument was used to evaluate the methodological issues and a multivariable regression analysis was conducted to investigate potential measures associated with methodological validity. We identified 163 SRMAs. The median number of missing safeguards of these SRMAs was 7 out of 16 (Interquartile range, IQR: 6-9), and on average, two of these missing safeguards were critical weaknesses. Our regression analysis suggested that SRMAs published in recent years (β = 0.16; 95%CI: 0.08, 0.24; p = 0.002), with the first author from Europe (β = 0.08; 95%CI: 0.02, 0.14; p = 0.013) tend to have higher relative methodological ranks. In conclusion, the methodological validity for current SRMAs in sleep medicine was poor. Further efforts to improve the methodological validity are needed.
越来越多的系统评价和荟萃分析（SRMAs）已经发表在睡眠医学领域。我们评估了这些 SRMAs 的方法学问题。预先制定了方案。从三个数据库中搜索了从成立到 2019 年 10 月发表的主要睡眠医学学术期刊上评估医疗干预措施的 SRMAs。使用 AMSTAR 2.0 工具评估方法学问题，并进行多变量回归分析以调查与方法学有效性相关的潜在措施。我们确定了 163 项 SRMAs。这些 SRMAs 中缺失保障措施的中位数为 16 项中的 7 项（四分位距，IQR：6-9），平均有两项缺失保障措施是关键弱点。我们的回归分析表明，近年来发表的 SRMAs（β=0.16；95%CI：0.08，0.24；p=0.002），第一作者来自欧洲（β=0.08；95%CI：0.02，0.14；p=0.013），其相对方法学排名更高。总之，当前睡眠医学中 SRMAs 的方法学有效性较差。需要进一步努力提高方法学有效性。
