CAJ | 학술논문

目的：评价国内杂志发表的有关冠心病防治领域Meta分析的方法学质量和报告质量。 　　方法：计算机检索维普中文科技期刊数据库（VIP）、中国期刊全文数据库（CNKI）、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）、万方数据库（WanFang Data）四大中文数据库，检索时间均为1987-01至2013-10，查找国内杂志发表的涉及冠心病防治的Meta分析文献。由两名研究人员根据纳入排除标准独立筛选文献，采用R-AMSTAR和PRISMA量表分别对其方法学质量和报告质量进行评价。 　　结果：共纳入201篇文献。方法学质量评分平均（24.65±3.97）分,无一研究满足全部条目要求，主要表现为缺乏前期设计方案、未能较好的控制选择偏倚、合并结果不当等。报告质量评分平均（17.20±2.90）分,无一研究全部满足27个条目规范要求，在摘要、研究目的、研究方案及注册、资料收集和分析、选择偏倚和发表偏倚的控制、质量评价等方面均有不同程度的缺失。 　　结论：国内杂志发表的冠心病防治领域的Meta分析尚存在不同程度的方法学和报告质量的问题，需进一步提高方法学质量并规范报告。
목적：평개국내잡지발표적유관관심병방치영역Meta분석적방법학질량화보고질량。 　　방법：계산궤검색유보중문과기기간수거고（VIP）、중국기간전문수거고（CNKI）、중국생물의학문헌수거고（CBM）、만방수거고（WanFang Data）사대중문수거고，검색시간균위1987-01지2013-10，사조국내잡지발표적섭급관심병방치적Meta분석문헌。유량명연구인원근거납입배제표준독립사선문헌，채용R-AMSTAR화PRISMA량표분별대기방법학질량화보고질량진행평개。 　　결과：공납입201편문헌。방법학질량평분평균（24.65±3.97）분,무일연구만족전부조목요구，주요표현위결핍전기설계방안、미능교호적공제선택편의、합병결과불당등。보고질량평분평균（17.20±2.90）분,무일연구전부만족27개조목규범요구，재적요、연구목적、연구방안급주책、자료수집화분석、선택편의화발표편의적공제、질량평개등방면균유불동정도적결실。 　　결론：국내잡지발표적관심병방치영역적Meta분석상존재불동정도적방법학화보고질량적문제，수진일보제고방법학질량병규범보고。
Objective: To assess the quality for meta-analysis on prevention and treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in China. Methods: We systemically searched 4 Chinese databases of VIP, CNKI, CBM and Wan Fang for their meta-analysis on CAD prevention and treatment from 1987-01 to 2013-10. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2 researchers independently screened and cross-checked all the literatures. The qualities of methodology and report were evaluated by R-AMSTAR and PRISMA scales. Results: A total of 201 literatures were enrolled for our study. The average score of methodology quality was (24.65±3.97), no literature met all required items, and the major problems were as lack of“a priori design”, insufifcient and bias of data selection combining inappropriate data synthesis. The average score of report quality was (17.20 ± 2.90), no literature met all 27 required items, and the major problems were as incomplete report of abstract, objective, protocol and registration, incomplete data collection/analysis, using and publishing bias information, incomplete quality assessment. Conclusion: Both of methodology and report of meta-analysis for CAD prevention and treatment have quality problems at different levels, further improvement should be expected.