• 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

10 篇关于晚期癌症患者的系统综述中有 9 篇的方法学质量极低——一项方法学研究。

Methodological quality was critically low in 9/10 systematic reviews in advanced cancer patients-A methodological study.

机构信息

Clinic for Palliative Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Aug;136:84-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.010. Epub 2021 Mar 16.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.010
PMID:33741503
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the methodological quality and the consideration of heterogeneity in systematic reviews (SRs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a methodological study (CRD42019134904) and searched three databases from January 2010 to July 2019. Interventional SRs with a statistically significant meta-analysis of at least four randomized controlled trials in advanced cancer patients were included. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 was used to evaluate the SRs' methodological quality. The consideration of heterogeneity was categorized in clinical or/and methodological heterogeneity and not explored.

RESULTS

From 6234 identified references, 261 SRs were included. Most SRs had a critically low quality (230, 88.1%). The majority of them (209, 80.1%) was classified as critically low because of non-registration (222, 85.1%) combined with the non-reporting of excluded full-texts and missing justifications for exclusion (218, 83.5%). Heterogeneity in trial results was not explored at all in 51 (19.5%) SRs whereas clinical heterogeneity was considered in 117 (44.8%), methodological heterogeneity in 13 (5.0%), and both clinical and methodological heterogeneity in 80 (30.7%) SRs.

CONCLUSION

The consideration of these findings in trainings for review authors and peer reviewers could improve the awareness of quality criteria and the quality of future SRs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-ID: CRD42019134904.

摘要

目的

评估系统评价(SR)的方法学质量和对异质性的考虑。

研究设计和设置

我们进行了一项方法学研究(CRD42019134904),并于 2010 年 1 月至 2019 年 7 月检索了三个数据库。纳入了对晚期癌症患者至少有 4 项随机对照试验进行统计学显著荟萃分析的干预性 SR。使用评估系统评价的测量工具(AMSTAR 2)来评估 SR 的方法学质量。对异质性的考虑分为临床或/和方法学异质性,未进行探索。

结果

从 6234 篇鉴定文献中,纳入了 261 篇 SR。大多数 SR 的质量为临界低(230 篇,88.1%)。其中大多数(209 篇,80.1%)被归类为临界低,原因是非注册(222 篇,85.1%)与未报告排除的全文和缺失排除的理由相结合(218 篇,83.5%)。51 篇(19.5%)SR 根本没有探讨试验结果的异质性,117 篇(44.8%)考虑了临床异质性,13 篇(5.0%)考虑了方法学异质性,80 篇(30.7%)考虑了临床和方法学异质性。

结论

在对综述作者和同行评审者的培训中考虑这些发现,可以提高对质量标准和未来 SR 质量的认识。

试验注册

PROSPERO-ID:CRD42019134904。

相似文献

1
Methodological quality was critically low in 9/10 systematic reviews in advanced cancer patients-A methodological study.10 篇关于晚期癌症患者的系统综述中有 9 篇的方法学质量极低——一项方法学研究。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Aug;136:84-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.010. Epub 2021 Mar 16.
2
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.
3
Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study.针刺系统评价方法学质量较低:一项横断面研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Oct 30;21(1):237. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01437-0.
4
Most systematic reviews reporting adherence to AMSTAR 2 had critically low methodological quality: a cross-sectional meta-research study.大多数报告遵循AMSTAR 2的系统评价的方法学质量极低:一项横断面元研究。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Jan;165:111210. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.026. Epub 2023 Nov 4.
5
Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.使用 AMSTAR 和 R-AMSTAR 比较神经病理性疼痛系统评价方法学质量评分。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 May 8;18(1):37. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0493-y.
6
Clinical Epidemiology in China series. Paper 3: The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by China' researchers in English-language is higher than those published in Chinese-language.中国临床流行病学系列。第 3 篇:中国研究者发表的英文系统评价和荟萃分析的方法学和报告质量高于中文发表的系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Dec;140:178-188. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.014. Epub 2021 Aug 18.
7
Methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey.中药系统评价的方法学质量:方法学调查。
BMC Complement Med Ther. 2022 Feb 23;22(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12906-022-03529-w.
8
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.
9
Methodological quality and risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews of treatments for peri-implantitis.系统评价治疗种植体周围炎的方法学质量和偏倚风险评估。
J Periodontal Res. 2019 Aug;54(4):374-387. doi: 10.1111/jre.12638. Epub 2019 Jan 22.
10
PRISMA and AMSTAR show systematic reviews on health literacy and cancer screening are of good quality.PRISMA 和 AMSTAR 显示,关于健康素养和癌症筛查的系统评价质量较高。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;99:123-131. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.012. Epub 2018 Apr 11.

引用本文的文献

1
Inclusion, characteristics and methodological limitations of systematic reviews in doctoral theses: A cross-sectional study of all universities in Sweden.博士论文中系统评价的纳入标准、特征及方法学局限性:瑞典所有大学的横断面研究
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2025 Jan 9;3(1):e70015. doi: 10.1002/cesm.70015. eCollection 2025 Jan.
2
Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Evaluating Effects of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy on Tendinopathies: A Scoping Review.评估体外冲击波疗法对肌腱病疗效的系统评价和Meta分析的报告及方法学质量:一项范围综述
J Chiropr Med. 2024 Sep;23(3):136-151. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2024.08.007. Epub 2024 Sep 30.
3
Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in patient management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: an umbrella review of systematic reviews from 2011 to 2024.
持续葡萄糖监测在2型糖尿病患者管理中的有效性:2011年至2024年系统评价的伞状综述
Arch Public Health. 2024 Dec 2;82(1):231. doi: 10.1186/s13690-024-01459-2.
4
Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews led by Peruvian authors: A scoping review.秘鲁作者主导的系统评价的特征与质量:一项范围综述
Heliyon. 2024 Aug 24;10(17):e36887. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36887. eCollection 2024 Sep 15.
5
Conclusiveness of Cochrane Reviews on Nursing Interventions for Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Analysis.Cochrane系统评价对癌症患者护理干预措施的结论性:一项系统分析
JMA J. 2024 Apr 15;7(2):178-184. doi: 10.31662/jmaj.2023-0181. Epub 2024 Apr 1.
6
Evaluation of 'implications for research' statements in systematic reviews of interventions in advanced cancer patients - a meta-research study.评价系统综述中干预措施在晚期癌症患者中的“研究意义”陈述 - 一项元研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Dec 20;23(1):302. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02124-y.
7
Different Approaches to Appraising Systematic Reviews of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion Using AMSTAR 2 Tool: Cross-Sectional Study.使用 AMSTAR 2 工具评估促进身体活动的数字干预措施系统评价的不同方法:横断面研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 7;20(6):4689. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20064689.
8
User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary.用户应用 AMSTAR 2 评价医疗干预系统评价的体验:述评。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Mar 16;23(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01879-8.
9
Three out of four published systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatments were not registered and one-third of those registered were published: a meta-research study.四分之三已发表的关于 COVID-19 治疗方法的系统评价未注册,已注册的三分之一已发表:一项元研究。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Dec;152:36-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.011. Epub 2022 Sep 27.
10
Evaluation of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion: Scoping Review.数字干预措施在促进身体活动中的评估:范围综述。
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2022 May 23;8(5):e37820. doi: 10.2196/37820.