Pharmacy Department/Evidence-based Pharmacy Centre, Ministry of Education, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University and Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Disease of Women and Children, Chengdu, China; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Jun;158:119-126. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.027. Epub 2023 Apr 5.
To systematically survey Cochrane reviews' approaches to calculating, presenting, and interpreting pooled estimates of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
We retrospectively selected 200 Cochrane reviews that met the eligibility criteria. Two researchers independently extracted the pooled effect measures and approaches for pooling and interpreting the effect measures, reaching consensus through discussions.
When primary studies used the same PROM, Cochrane review authors most often used mean differences (MDs) (81.9%) for calculating the pooled effect measures; when primary studies used different PROMs, the review authors often applied standardized mean differences (SMDs) (54.3%). Although in most cases (80.1%) the review authors interpreted the importance of effect, they failed, in 48.5% of the pooled effect measures, to report criteria for categorizing the magnitude of effect. When authors interpreted the importance of the effect, for those with primary studies using the same PROM, they most often referred to the minimally important differences (MIDs) (75.0%); for those with primary studies using different PROMs, the approaches used varied.
Cochrane review authors most often used MDs or SMDs for calculating and presenting the pooled effect measures of PROs but often failed to make explicit their criteria for categorizing the magnitude of effect.
系统调查 Cochrane 综述计算、呈现和解释患者报告结局测量（PROMs）汇总估计值的方法。
我们回顾性地选择了符合纳入标准的 200 篇 Cochrane 综述。两位研究人员独立提取汇总效应指标和汇总效应指标的方法，并通过讨论达成共识。
当主要研究使用相同的 PROM 时，Cochrane 综述作者最常使用均数差值（MD）（81.9%）来计算汇总效应指标；当主要研究使用不同的 PROM 时，综述作者经常应用标准化均数差值（SMD）（54.3%）。尽管在大多数情况下（80.1%），综述作者解释了效应的重要性，但在 48.5%的汇总效应指标中，他们未能报告分类效应大小的标准。当作者解释效应的重要性时，对于那些使用相同 PROM 的主要研究，他们最常参考最小有意义差异（MIDs）（75.0%）；对于那些使用不同 PROM 的主要研究，所使用的方法各不相同。
Cochrane 综述作者最常使用 MD 或 SMD 来计算和呈现 PRO 的汇总效应指标，但经常未能明确分类效应大小的标准。
