CAJ | 학술논문

目的：评价《中华胃肠外科杂志》1998年1月至2014年7月发表的Meta分析文献的方法学质量和报告质量。方法计算机检索万方医学网1998年1月至2014年7月《中华胃肠外科杂志》公开发表的Meta分析文献，由2名评价员分别按照纳入和排除标准筛选文献，并收集文献的基本信息，采用Meta分析方法学质量评价工具（AMSTAR）量表进行方法学质量评价，采用Meta分析优先报告条目（PRISMA）量表进行报告质量评价。结果共纳入文献42篇。按AMSTAR的判定标准，纳入文献中方法学质量评分为6～9（中位数7）分，高质量者2篇（4．8％），中等质量者40篇（95．2％），低质量者0篇（0％）。其中符合率较低的条目为“是否说明相关利益冲突”、“是否提供了纳入和排除的研究文献清单”、“发表情况是否已考虑在纳入标准中，如灰色文献”、“是否评估了发表偏倚的可能性”。按照PRISMA的判定标准，42篇文献的报告质量评价得分为14～22（18．4±2．0）分，小于或者等于15分有3篇（7．1％），15．5～21．0分有35篇（83．3％），21．5～27．0分有4篇（9．6％），其中标题、方法部分中的效应指标、结果部分中的单个研究结果及合成结果、讨论部分中的证据总结符合率较高；结构式摘要、引言目的、方案和注册、纳入标准、研究选择、资料条目、研究间偏倚、补充分析、结论局限性及资金支持等报告不够全面。结论《中华胃肠外科杂志》发表的Meta分析文献方法学质量和报告质量总体较高，可为胃肠外科医师的临床决策提供良好的证据支持，但仍需按照系统评价的写作要求不断提高文献质量。
목적：평개《중화위장외과잡지》1998년1월지2014년7월발표적Meta분석문헌적방법학질량화보고질량。방법계산궤검색만방의학망1998년1월지2014년7월《중화위장외과잡지》공개발표적Meta분석문헌，유2명평개원분별안조납입화배제표준사선문헌，병수집문헌적기본신식，채용Meta분석방법학질량평개공구（AMSTAR）량표진행방법학질량평개，채용Meta분석우선보고조목（PRISMA）량표진행보고질량평개。결과공납입문헌42편。안AMSTAR적판정표준，납입문헌중방법학질량평분위6～9（중위수7）분，고질량자2편（4．8％），중등질량자40편（95．2％），저질량자0편（0％）。기중부합솔교저적조목위“시부설명상관이익충돌”、“시부제공료납입화배제적연구문헌청단”、“발표정황시부이고필재납입표준중，여회색문헌”、“시부평고료발표편의적가능성”。안조PRISMA적판정표준，42편문헌적보고질량평개득분위14～22（18．4±2．0）분，소우혹자등우15분유3편（7．1％），15．5～21．0분유35편（83．3％），21．5～27．0분유4편（9．6％），기중표제、방법부분중적효응지표、결과부분중적단개연구결과급합성결과、토론부분중적증거총결부합솔교고；결구식적요、인언목적、방안화주책、납입표준、연구선택、자료조목、연구간편의、보충분석、결론국한성급자금지지등보고불구전면。결론《중화위장외과잡지》발표적Meta분석문헌방법학질량화보고질량총체교고，가위위장외과의사적림상결책제공량호적증거지지，단잉수안조계통평개적사작요구불단제고문헌질량。
Objective To assess the methodological quality and reporting quality on Meta-analysis being published in the Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. Methods Computerized literature searching was carried out in Wanfang Medical Online to collect articles that Meta-analysis was used in the Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery since it was founded till July , 2014. Manual retrieval was also conducted. Two researchers independently screened for literature and extracted data. Qualities on methodologies or on the processes of reporting and reviewing were evaluated by both AMSTAR and PRISMA scales. Results Forty-two papers on meta-analyses were included in this study. Results on the quality of methodology evaluation showed that the lowest and highest scores were 6 and 9 respectively, the median score was 7. Two articles (4.8%) were rated as high, 40 articles (95.2%) as moderate and 0 articles (0%) as low. Although the quality of methodology was above the average , however, there were still some problems seen in some papers as the conflict of interest was not stated , the list of studies (included and excluded) was not provided, a comprehensive literature search was not performed, the likelihood of publication bias was not assessed, etc. Results on the quality of reporting evaluation showed that the lowest and highest scores were 14 and 22 respectively , the average score was 18.43±2.03, 3 articles (7.1%) scored less than 15 points, 35 articles (83.3%) scored 15.5-21 points, and 4 articles (9.6%) scored 21.5-27 points. The included reviews had high quality on the titles of the report, inclusion criteria, rationale of introduction, synthesis of results, results of individual. However, the abstract, objectives of introduction, scheme and registered, inclusion criteria, research screening, additional analysis, conclusion limitations, funding support etc. were lack of comprehensive reports. Conclusions Articles on Meta-analysis published in the Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery are of high quality. The Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery can provide better evidence for clinical decision to gastrointestinal surgeons. However, both of qualities on methodology and reports sill call for continuous improvement.