CAJ | 학술논문

目的：评价《中华儿科杂志》发表系统评价/Meta分析（ SR /MA）的报告质量和方法学质量。方法：检索发表在《中华儿科杂志》上的系统评价/Meta分析文献，共纳入13篇。提取纳入文献的基本信息，采用系统综述和Meta分析优先报告的条目（PRISMA）规范和方法学质量评价工具AMSTAR量表进行质量评价，使用RevMan 5．0软件进行统计分析。结果：PRISMA评分范围14-23．5分，平均为20．0±3．11分；AMSTAR评分范围和平均分分别为3-7．5和6．04±1．38分。结论：《中华儿科杂志》发表系统评价/Meta分析报告和方法学质量中等，报告质量规范和方法学质量还有待提高。
목적：평개《중화인과잡지》발표계통평개/Meta분석（ SR /MA）적보고질량화방법학질량。방법：검색발표재《중화인과잡지》상적계통평개/Meta분석문헌，공납입13편。제취납입문헌적기본신식，채용계통종술화Meta분석우선보고적조목（PRISMA）규범화방법학질량평개공구AMSTAR량표진행질량평개，사용RevMan 5．0연건진행통계분석。결과：PRISMA평분범위14-23．5분，평균위20．0±3．11분；AMSTAR평분범위화평균분분별위3-7．5화6．04±1．38분。결론：《중화인과잡지》발표계통평개/Meta분석보고화방법학질량중등，보고질량규범화방법학질량환유대제고。
Objective To assess the academic level of papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis published in Chinese Journal of Pediatricsand methodology they used.Methods Basic data were extracted from 13 papers on sys-tematic reviews and meta-analysis published in Chinese Journal of Pediatrics .The methodology they used was assessed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and ANSTAR Scale and analyzed using the RevMan5.0.Results The PRISMA score was 14-23.5 (mean 20.0±3.11) and the AMSTAR score was 3-7.5 (mean 6.04±1.38) for the methodology used in papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis published in Chinese Journal of Pediatrics .Conclusion The methodology used in papers on systematic reviews and meta-analy-sis published in Chinese Journal of Pediatrics is not quite valid and should thus be improved .