方案：对中国循证社会科学中采用Meta分析的系统评价的方法学质量和报告条目进行批判性评价：一项系统评价。
PROTOCOL: Critical appraisal of methodological quality and reporting items of systematic reviews with meta-analysis in evidence-based social science in China: A systematic review.
作者信息
Guo Liping, Zhou Wenjie, Xing Xin, Wei Zhipeng, Yang Minyan, Ma Mina, Yang Kehu, White Howard
机构信息
Center of Evidence-Based Medicine, School of Basic Medicine Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.
School of Business Northwest Normal University Lanzhou Gansu China.
出版信息
Campbell Syst Rev. 2022 Sep 29;18(4):e1278. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1278. eCollection 2022 Dec.
Abstract
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: (1) To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews published in Chinese social science journals against the PRISMA and MOOSE standards; (2) To evaluate the methodology quality of systematic reviews published in Chinese social science journals against the AMSTAR-2 and DART standards; and (3) To analyze other characteristics of systematic reviews published in Chinese social science journals using content analysis.
摘要
这是一项坎贝尔系统评价的方案。目标如下：（1）对照PRISMA和MOOSE标准，评估发表在中国社会科学期刊上的系统评价的报告质量；（2）对照AMSTAR-2和DART标准，评估发表在中国社会科学期刊上的系统评价的方法学质量；（3）采用内容分析法分析发表在中国社会科学期刊上的系统评价的其他特征。
相似文献
1
PROTOCOL: Critical appraisal of methodological quality and reporting items of systematic reviews with meta-analysis in evidence-based social science in China: A systematic review.方案：对中国循证社会科学中采用Meta分析的系统评价的方法学质量和报告条目进行批判性评价：一项系统评价。
Campbell Syst Rev. 2022 Sep 29;18(4):e1278. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1278. eCollection 2022 Dec.
2
Critical appraisal of methodological quality and completeness of reporting in Chinese social science systematic reviews with meta-analysis: A systematic review.对中国社会科学中采用元分析的系统评价的方法学质量和报告完整性的批判性评估：一项系统评价。
Campbell Syst Rev. 2025 Jan 19;21(1):e70014. doi: 10.1002/cl2.70014. eCollection 2025 Mar.
3
Evidence Based Social Science in China Paper 4 : The quality of social science systematic reviews and meta-analysis published from 2000-2019.中国循证社会科学论文 4：2000-2019 年发表的社会科学系统评价和荟萃分析的质量。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Jan;141:132-140. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.09.031. Epub 2021 Oct 16.
4
The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review.坎贝尔系统评价的方法学与报告特征：一项系统评价。
Campbell Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 7;17(1):e1134. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1134. eCollection 2021 Mar.
5
Gaps in completeness of reporting and methodological quality: a metaresearch study of 139 network meta-analyses published in January 2023 using PRISMA-NMA and AMSTAR-2.报告完整性和方法学质量的差距：一项对2023年1月发表的139项网络荟萃分析进行的元研究，采用PRISMA-NMA和AMSTAR-2。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 Apr 9;183:111783. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111783.
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
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.
8
Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses.评价发表的系统评价和荟萃分析的质量对首选报告项目的系统评价和荟萃分析 (PRISMA) 声明的认可。
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 26;8(12):e83138. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083138. eCollection 2013.
9
Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature.骨科文献中系统评价的报告和方法学质量。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jun 5;95(11):e771-7. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00597.
10
Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement?研究质量与报告完整性的关联：自 PRISMA 声明发布以来，主要放射学期刊中系统评价和荟萃分析的报告完整性和质量是否发生了变化？
Radiology. 2013 Nov;269(2):413-26. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130273. Epub 2013 Jul 3.
引用本文的文献
1
Critical appraisal of methodological quality and completeness of reporting in Chinese social science systematic reviews with meta-analysis: A systematic review.对中国社会科学中采用元分析的系统评价的方法学质量和报告完整性的批判性评估：一项系统评价。
Campbell Syst Rev. 2025 Jan 19;21(1):e70014. doi: 10.1002/cl2.70014. eCollection 2025 Mar.
本文引用的文献
1
The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review.坎贝尔系统评价的方法学与报告特征：一项系统评价。
Campbell Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 7;17(1):e1134. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1134. eCollection 2021 Mar.
2
Reporting and methodological quality of systematic literature reviews evaluating the associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors: a systematic quality review.评估电子烟使用与吸烟行为之间关联的系统文献综述的报告和方法学质量：系统质量评价。
Harm Reduct J. 2021 Nov 27;18(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s12954-021-00570-9.
3
Evidence Based Social Science in China Paper 4 : The quality of social science systematic reviews and meta-analysis published from 2000-2019.中国循证社会科学论文 4：2000-2019 年发表的社会科学系统评价和荟萃分析的质量。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Jan;141:132-140. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.09.031. Epub 2021 Oct 16.
4
PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.PRISMA 2020 解释和说明：系统评价报告的更新指南和范例。
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160.
5
The metawars.元战争
Science. 2018 Sep 21;361(6408):1184-1188. doi: 10.1126/science.361.6408.1184.
6
AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.AMSTAR 2：一种用于系统评价的关键评估工具，该系统评价包括医疗保健干预措施的随机或非随机研究，或两者皆有。
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008.
7
The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review.工业与组织心理学中系统评价和元分析的报告质量：一项系统评价
Front Psychol. 2017 Aug 22;8:1395. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01395. eCollection 2017.
8
The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar.来自中国和美国的系统评价的方法学质量和报告质量相似。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 May;85:50-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.004. Epub 2017 Jan 4.
9
A Neuropsychologist's Guide To Undertaking a Systematic Review for Publication: Making the most of PRISMA Guidelines.神经心理学家发表系统性综述指南：充分利用PRISMA指南
Neuropsychol Rev. 2016 Jun;26(2):109-20. doi: 10.1007/s11065-016-9318-0. Epub 2016 May 19.
10
Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review.报告指南的方法学与报告质量：系统评价
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Sep 22;15:74. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0069-z.
Zotero 插件