中国免疫学杂志
中國免疫學雜誌
중국면역학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
2014年
6期
797-801,813
,共6页
免疫接种%系统评价%Meta分析%质量评价
免疫接種%繫統評價%Meta分析%質量評價
면역접충%계통평개%Meta분석%질량평개
Immunization%Systematic-review%Meta-analysis%Quality-assessment
目的:对国内发表的免疫接种领域系统评价/Meta分析的方法学和发表质量进行评价。方法:计算机检索CNKI、WANFANG、VIP及CBM数据库,检索时间从建库至2013年11月,查找免疫接种领域的系统评价/Meta分析的中文文献,采用R-AMSTAR和PRISMA量表对文献的方法学质量和发表质量进行评价。结果:最终纳入32篇文献。文献方法学质量主要存在文献检索不全面、未提供排除文献清单和筛选流程图、缺乏纳入研究的科学性评价及运用,对研究间异质性处理不当,对发表偏倚控制不足等问题。报告质量的主要问题表现在、纳入排除标准、资料搜集及提取方法、结果及讨论等方面报道不全面。结论:国内已发表的免疫接种领域系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量及报告质量仍存在一定程度的问题,有待进一步提高和规范。
目的:對國內髮錶的免疫接種領域繫統評價/Meta分析的方法學和髮錶質量進行評價。方法:計算機檢索CNKI、WANFANG、VIP及CBM數據庫,檢索時間從建庫至2013年11月,查找免疫接種領域的繫統評價/Meta分析的中文文獻,採用R-AMSTAR和PRISMA量錶對文獻的方法學質量和髮錶質量進行評價。結果:最終納入32篇文獻。文獻方法學質量主要存在文獻檢索不全麵、未提供排除文獻清單和篩選流程圖、缺乏納入研究的科學性評價及運用,對研究間異質性處理不噹,對髮錶偏倚控製不足等問題。報告質量的主要問題錶現在、納入排除標準、資料搜集及提取方法、結果及討論等方麵報道不全麵。結論:國內已髮錶的免疫接種領域繫統評價/Meta分析的方法學質量及報告質量仍存在一定程度的問題,有待進一步提高和規範。
목적:대국내발표적면역접충영역계통평개/Meta분석적방법학화발표질량진행평개。방법:계산궤검색CNKI、WANFANG、VIP급CBM수거고,검색시간종건고지2013년11월,사조면역접충영역적계통평개/Meta분석적중문문헌,채용R-AMSTAR화PRISMA량표대문헌적방법학질량화발표질량진행평개。결과:최종납입32편문헌。문헌방법학질량주요존재문헌검색불전면、미제공배제문헌청단화사선류정도、결핍납입연구적과학성평개급운용,대연구간이질성처리불당,대발표편의공제불족등문제。보고질량적주요문제표현재、납입배제표준、자료수집급제취방법、결과급토론등방면보도불전면。결론:국내이발표적면역접충영역계통평개/Meta분석적방법학질량급보고질량잉존재일정정도적문제,유대진일보제고화규범。
To assess the methodology and report quality of Chinese systematic reviews /Meta-analysis on immunization.Methods: All literatures of systematic reviews/Meta-analysis on immunization were searched in the four Chinese databases:CNKI,WANFANG Database,VIP and CBM from the establishment date to November 2013.Methodology quality and report quality of included reviews were evaluated by R-AMSTAR scale and PRISMA scale.Results:32 literatures were identified.The main problems of methodology quality were insufficient in a comprehensive literature search , lack of the list of excluded studies and the selection process ,lack of the documented assessment of the scientific quality of included studies and the appropriate use of the scientific quality in forming conclusions , inappropriate dealing with heterogeneity of data , insufficient in control of publication bias.The main problems of report quality were incomplete report in abstract , inclusion and exclusion criteria , data collection and analysis methods , result and discussion.Conclusion: The methodology quality and report quality of included literatures have more or less flaws in different levels.Further improvement of methodological quality and reporting is required in order to increase the quality of these studies .