Suppr超能文献

系统评价中用于体外研究的质量评估工具:系统评价。

Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review.

机构信息

Institute of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, Duy Tan University, Ho Chi Minh City, 700000, Vietnam.

Faculty of Natural Sciences, Duy Tan University, Da Nang City, 550000, Vietnam.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 May 8;21(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01295-w.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are commonly conducted to evaluate and summarize medical literature. This is especially useful in assessing in vitro studies for consistency. Our study aims to systematically review all available quality assessment (QA) tools employed on in vitro SRs/MAs.

METHOD

A search on four databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Virtual Health Library and Web of Science, was conducted from 2006 to 2020. The available SRs/MAs of in vitro studies were evaluated. DARE tool was applied to assess the risk of bias of included articles. Our protocol was developed and uploaded to ResearchGate in June 2016.

RESULTS

Our findings reported an increasing trend in publication of in vitro SRs/MAs from 2007 to 2020. Among the 244 included SRs/MAs, 126 articles (51.6%) had conducted the QA procedure. Overall, 51 QA tools were identified; 26 of them (51%) were developed by the authors specifically, whereas 25 (49%) were pre-constructed tools. SRs/MAs in dentistry frequently had their own QA tool developed by the authors, while SRs/MAs in other topics applied various QA tools. Many pre-structured tools in these in vitro SRs/MAs were modified from QA tools of in vivo or clinical trials, therefore, they had various criteria.

CONCLUSION

Many different QA tools currently exist in the literature; however, none cover all critical aspects of in vitro SRs/MAs. There is a need for a comprehensive guideline to ensure the quality of SR/MA due to their precise nature.

摘要

背景

系统评价(SRs)和荟萃分析(MAs)常用于评估和总结医学文献。这在评估体外研究的一致性方面特别有用。我们的研究旨在系统地综述所有用于体外 SRs/MA 的现有质量评估(QA)工具。

方法

从 2006 年至 2020 年,我们在四个数据库(包括 PubMed、Scopus、Virtual Health Library 和 Web of Science)上进行了检索。评估了体外研究的现有 SRs/MA。应用 DARE 工具评估纳入文章的偏倚风险。我们的方案于 2016 年 6 月在 ResearchGate 上发布。

结果

我们的研究结果报告了从 2007 年至 2020 年体外 SRs/MA 的发表呈上升趋势。在纳入的 244 篇 SRs/MA 中,有 126 篇(51.6%)进行了 QA 程序。总体而言,确定了 51 个 QA 工具;其中 26 个(51%)是由作者专门开发的,而 25 个(49%)是预先构建的工具。牙科学领域的 SRs/MA 经常由作者开发自己的 QA 工具,而其他主题的 SRs/MA 则应用了各种 QA 工具。这些体外 SRs/MA 中的许多预先构建的工具是从体内或临床试验的 QA 工具修改而来的,因此,它们有不同的标准。

结论

目前文献中有许多不同的 QA 工具,但没有一个工具涵盖体外 SRs/MA 的所有关键方面。由于其精确性,需要制定一个全面的指南来确保 SR/MA 的质量。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0532/8106836/4869fc80b2a8/12874_2021_1295_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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