近5年中国科学引文数据库护理干预性系统评价/Meta分析报告质量分析

doi:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2021.17.001

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的评价近5年中国科学引文数据库收录的护理期刊发表的干预性系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量,以期规范其研究过程和报告方法,提升系统评价/Meta分析质量。方法计算机检索CNKI、VIP、CBM和Wanfang数据库,搜集中国科学引文数据库收录的护理期刊发表的干预性系统评价/Meta分析研究,检索时限为2015年1月—2020年6月。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料,采用系统评价和Meta分析优先报告的条目进行报告质量评价;采用Office Excel 2019、Stata 15.0软件对相关数据进行统计和分析。结果共纳入干预性系统评价/Meta分析176篇,其PRISMA评分为14.5~24.5分（20.17±2.00）,其中有1篇研究评分≤15分,有严重信息缺失;122篇评分为15~21分,存在一定报告缺陷;53篇评分为21~27分,报告相对完全。报告质量不足主要表现为结构式摘要（0/176）,方案和注册（0/176）,检索策略（55/176）,研究间偏倚（26/176）和资金支持（0/176）报告不全面。亚组分析结果显示：有基金资助、作者单位性质为医院和单位数为1个可明显提高系统评价/Meta分析报告质量（P<0.05）;作者人数对系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量影响不显著（P>0.05）。结论目前,我国护理领域干预性系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量差异较大。因此,有必要采取相应的措施,加大对PRISMA的宣传和普及,推动其在护理期刊稿约中的引用;研究人员应严格遵守PRISMA相关条目,规范、详细地进行报告;护理期刊的编辑和审稿人在同行评审阶段也要严格遵循PRISMA的指导方针,以期提高系统评价/Meta分析的质量。

关键词: 系统评价, Meta分析, 护理, 报告质量, PRISMA

Abstract: Objectives To evaluate the reporting quality of interventional systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) published in nursing journals included in the Chinese Science Citation Database in the past 5 years, to standardize the research process and reporting methods and to improve the quality of SRs/MAs. Methods CNKI、VIP、CBM and Wanfang electronically searched to collect interventional SRs/MAs published in nursing journals included in Chinese Science Citation Database from January 2015 to June 2020. Two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the reporting quality using preferred reporting items for SRs/Mas. Excel 2019, and Stata15.0 software were then used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 176 SRs/MAs were included and their PRISMA scores ranged from 14.5 to 24.5 (20.17±2.00), including 1 study with a score ≤15 and serious information missing, 122 scoring from 15 to 21 showing some reporting defects; and 53 scoring from 21 to 27 with relatively complete reporting. The poor quality of reports was mainly manifested as structured summary (0/176), protocol and registration (0/176), search strategy reports (55/176), risk of bias in individual studies (26/176) and incomplete reporting of funding (0/176). Subgroup analysis showed that the quality of SRs/MAs could be significantly improved by funding, authors working in hospitals and only one unit(P<0.05); the number of authors had no significant effect on the quality of SRs/MAs (P>0.05). Conclusion Currently, the reporting quality of interventional SRs/MAs in the field of nursing varies greatly in China. Therefore, it is necessary to take corresponding measures to increase the publicity and popularity of PRISMA and promote its citation in nursing journal manuscripts. Researchers should strictly follow PRISMA related items and reports in a normative and detailed way. Editors and reviewers of nursing journals should also strictly follow PRISMA guidelines during peer review so as to improve the quality of SRs/MAs.

Key words: systematic review, Meta-analysis, nursing, reporting quality, PRISMA

中图分类号:

迟俊婷, 陈飞, 李思彦, 张静, 陶红霞, 阮海慧, 牛晓丹, 王艳红. 近5年中国科学引文数据库护理干预性系统评价/Meta分析报告质量分析[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(17): 1-5.

CHI Jun-ting, CHEN Fei, LI Si-yan, ZHANG Jing, TAO Hong-xia, RUAN Hai-hui, NIU Xiao-dan, WANG Yan-hong. Systematic Review/Meta-analysis of Intervention Published in Nursing Journal of Chinese Science Citation Database in Recent 5 Years[J]. Journal of Nursing, 2021, 28(17): 1-5.

参考文献

[1] 梁莉,葛龙,周为文,等. 我国诊断性试验系统评价/Meta分析的检索情况调查分析[J].中华医学图书情报杂志, 2013, 22(5):9-16. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-3982.2013.05.002.
[2] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al.Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses:The Prisma Statement[J].PLoS Med, 2009, 6(7):e1000097. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
[3] Jin YH, Ma ET,Gao WJ,et al.Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews or Meta-analyses in Nursing Field in China[J]. Int J Nurs Pract, 2014, 20(1):70-78. DOI:10.1111/ijn.12123.
[4] 魏洪悦,靳英辉,谢雨露,等. 2012~2015年我国护理领域系统评价/Meta分析的报告学质量评价[J].护理学杂志, 2016, 31(16):95-97. DOI:10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2016.16.095.
[5] 靳英辉,马恩婷,花巍,等. 国内护理领域系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告质量评价[J].中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(9):1148-1155.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-2531.2012.09.019.
[6] Yang M, Jiang L,Wang A,et al.Epidemiology Characteristics, Reporting Characteristics,and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Traditional Chinese Medicine Nursing Interventions Published in Chinese Journals[J]. Int J Nurs Pract, 2017, 23(1):e12498. DOI:10.1111/ijn.12498.
[7] Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al.Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and Explanation[J]. BMJ, 2015, 350:g7647. DOI:10.1136/bmj.g7647.
[8] Tian J, Zhang J, Ge L, et al.The Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews from China and the USA are Similar[J]. J Clin Epidemiol,2017, 85:50-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.004.
[9] 杨克虎. 系统评价指导手册[M]. 北京:人民卫生出版社, 2010.
[10] Ge L, Tian JH, Li YN, et al.Association Between Prospective Registration and Overall Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews: A Meta-epidemiological Study[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2018, 93:45-55. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.012.
[11] Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al.Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement[J]. Syst Rev, 2015, 4(1):1-9. DOI:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
[12] Kolychev AP, Terpilovskii MA, Uversky VN.Sequential and Asynchronous Strengthening of the Influence of Temperature on the Endo-and Exocytosis of Insulin in the Isolated Vertebrata Hepatocytes: Summing up Previous Studies[J]. Curr Protein Pept Sci, 2020,21(1):22-35.DOI:10.2174/1389203720666190325101804.
[13] De Vries RBM, Hooijmans CR, Langendam MW, et al.A Protocol Format for the Preparation, Registration and Publication of Systematic Reviews of Animal Intervention Studies[J]. Evidence-based Preclinical Medicine, 2015, 2(1): e00007. DOI:10.1002/ebm2.7.
[14] Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al.Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias[J]. PLoS One, 2008, 3(8):e3081. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081.
[15] 熊俊,陈日新. 系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量的评价工具AMSTAR[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(9):1084-1089. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-2531.2011.09.017.
[16] 詹思延. 第一讲:如何报告系统综述和Meta分析——国际报告规范QUOROM和MOOSE解读[J]. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2010, 5(1):60-63. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1673-5501.2010.01.009.

相关文章 15

[1]	陈羽双, 杨斯钰, 张叶霞. 2010-2019年基于PubMed数据库家庭参与式护理研究热点的共词聚类分析[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(9): 14-18.
[2]	李萍, 靳小雯, 李燕玲, 徐玉兰, 喻姣花, 李卓颖, 李应, 邓睿. 成年患者结直肠镜检查肠道准备不充分的预防及管理证据总结[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(9): 22-28.
[3]	张丽娟, 李金兰, 钟巧玲, 罗庆华, 张慧珍, 谢新华, 覃惠英. 癌症患者术后下肢淋巴水肿行综合消肿治疗联合泡沫颗粒绷带的效果观察[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(9): 62-65.
[4]	李洁, 张斯秀, 徐翠荣. 以家庭为中心的护理对ICU患者家属满意度影响的研究进展[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(9): 19-21.
[5]	周田田, 王清, 黄萍, 陈雁. 安静时间对住院患者影响的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(9): 29-34.
[6]	程爽, 熊振芳, 蔡艺, 陈涵彬, 惠靖瑞. 父母接受孤独症儿童诊断经历质性研究的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(9): 35-42.
[7]	陈晓霞, 刘小民, 宋海娟, 张新芳, 谢庆. 7例胎儿行宫内肺动脉瓣成形术的术中护理[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(9): 71-73.
[8]	韦耀猛, 凌云, 宋亚敏, 陈官映. 5例肥胖患者在心脏术后发生低氧血症行俯卧位通气治疗的护理[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(8): 56-58.
[9]	刘清玄, 张振香, 郭云飞, 张乐芸, 林蓓蕾, 梅永霞. 国内外脑卒中患者创伤后成长水平及其相关因素的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(8): 1-7.
[10]	吴晓珩, 杨元立, 胡馨予, 王翠萍, 张萦, 王艳春, 陶艳玲. 住院患者输血全流程管理的循证实践[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(8): 33-38.
[11]	黄海英, 苏小玲, 黄永贤, 曹燕锋, 李晓华. 4例血液肿瘤患儿PICC拔管困难的原因分析及对策[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(8): 69-71.
[12]	严露培, 姚丽丽, 赵庆华, 肖明朝, 李跃荣. 基于柯氏模型对TeamSTEPPS应用于医疗人员培训后效果维持的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(8): 17-22.
[13]	胡正中, 廖园园, 周毅峰, 彭瑨, 秦月兰. 结直肠癌患者手术切口感染危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(8): 23-27.
[14]	巫春兰, 黄佳诚, 常珍, 陈炜, 帅燕珍. 静脉输液管理系统的设计和应用[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(8): 62-64.
[15]	赵志勇, 徐筱. 皮试结果可视窗判断圆尺的研制及应用[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(8): 65-68.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared