CAJ | 학술논문

目的：调查我国“循证”冠名杂志发表的干预类系统评价/Meta 分析统计学软件和统计学分析方法现状。方法以《中国循证医学杂志》、《循证医学》、《中国循证儿科杂志》、《中国循证心血管医学杂志》4本杂志官方网站为数据来源，根据纳入排除标准，纳入干预类的系统评价/Meta分析/荟萃分析/系统综述，检索时间截止2011年12月31日。2名研究者独立提取资料，并输入Excel软件分析。结果共纳入干预类系统评价/Meta分析487篇，RevMan为最常用的统计学软件（445篇，91．38％），其次为Stata（13篇，2．67％）。92．81％（452篇）系统评价/Meta 分析使用1种统计软件，1．64％（8篇）使用2种统计软件，5．54％（27篇）未报告使用的统计软件。统计学分析方法的描述和执行情况存在结果部分和方法学部分的报告率不等，尤其体现在敏感性分析、亚组分析和发表偏倚的评价，且其本身的报告比例并不高。结论调查显示RevMan是目前我国干预类系统评价/Meta分析的首选统计软件；正确地执行敏感性分析、亚组分析及评估发表偏倚可有效地避免各种偏倚。
목적：조사아국“순증”관명잡지발표적간예류계통평개/Meta 분석통계학연건화통계학분석방법현상。방법이《중국순증의학잡지》、《순증의학》、《중국순증인과잡지》、《중국순증심혈관의학잡지》4본잡지관방망참위수거래원，근거납입배제표준，납입간예류적계통평개/Meta분석/회췌분석/계통종술，검색시간절지2011년12월31일。2명연구자독립제취자료，병수입Excel연건분석。결과공납입간예류계통평개/Meta분석487편，RevMan위최상용적통계학연건（445편，91．38％），기차위Stata（13편，2．67％）。92．81％（452편）계통평개/Meta 분석사용1충통계연건，1．64％（8편）사용2충통계연건，5．54％（27편）미보고사용적통계연건。통계학분석방법적묘술화집행정황존재결과부분화방법학부분적보고솔불등，우기체현재민감성분석、아조분석화발표편의적평개，차기본신적보고비례병불고。결론조사현시RevMan시목전아국간예류계통평개/Meta분석적수선통계연건；정학지집행민감성분석、아조분석급평고발표편의가유효지피면각충편의。
Objective The aim of this study is to explore the statistical problems current situation of systematic reviews or meta analyses on intervention published in Chinese journals of titled “evidence-based”. Methods The official websites of the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine , the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine , Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Pediatrics and Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine being the sources of data , according to the selection criteria and exclusion criteria, the studies that met the condition were selected and then analyzed with the Excellsoftware. The deadline was December 31, 2011. Results A total of 487 studies were fitted into at last. RevMan is the most commonly used statistical software (445 studies, 91.38%), followed by Stata (13studies, 2.67%). Software combinations: A kind of software used (452 studies, 92.81%), the use of two kinds of softwares (8 studies, 1.64%), and 5.54% (27 studies) did not report any software. The reporting rate of description and implementation for statistical methods was different in result section and methodological section , especially reflected in the sensitivity analysis , subgroup analysis , publication bias evaluation , and the ratio itself was poor. Conclusion The survey showed that the RevMan was the first choice on systematic reviews or meta analyses on intervention. The uses of subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were poor. More attention should be paid to these files in future studies.