CAJ | 학술논문

目的：分析有关反常性痤疮的中文期刊文献证据的等级现状。方法通过检索中文数据库主题为“反常性痤疮”的期刊文献，分析其文献类型、发表时间、期刊来源等要素，根据牛津大学循证医学中心证据等级标准来评价文献的评价证据等级。结果共纳入文献99篇，来源于52种中文期刊，出版时间分布于1995年～2015年。无推荐等级为A的文献；推荐等级为B的文献4篇，证据等级均为3b；推荐等级为C的文献78篇，证据等级均为4；推荐等级为D的文献17篇，证据等级均为5。其中，《中华皮肤病杂志》《临床皮肤科杂志》及《中国皮肤性病学杂志》各有8篇，均为证据等级4和5的文献。结论关于反常性痤疮的中文文献绝大多数属于低证据等级文献，对临床工作的指导意义存在明显的局限性，提示当前国内学者需重视对现有低证据等级文献资料的整理分析和学习借鉴，同时积极开展高证据等级的临床研究。
목적：분석유관반상성좌창적중문기간문헌증거적등급현상。방법통과검색중문수거고주제위“반상성좌창”적기간문헌，분석기문헌류형、발표시간、기간래원등요소，근거우진대학순증의학중심증거등급표준래평개문헌적평개증거등급。결과공납입문헌99편，래원우52충중문기간，출판시간분포우1995년～2015년。무추천등급위A적문헌；추천등급위B적문헌4편，증거등급균위3b；추천등급위C적문헌78편，증거등급균위4；추천등급위D적문헌17편，증거등급균위5。기중，《중화피부병잡지》《림상피부과잡지》급《중국피부성병학잡지》각유8편，균위증거등급4화5적문헌。결론관우반상성좌창적중문문헌절대다수속우저증거등급문헌，대림상공작적지도의의존재명현적국한성，제시당전국내학자수중시대현유저증거등급문헌자료적정리분석화학습차감，동시적겁개전고증거등급적림상연구。
Purpose The paper analyzes the current situation of evidence level of literatures in Chinese periodicals about acne inversa. Method The evidence level of literatures in periodicals titled "acne inversa" retrieved from the Chinese database is evaluated by analyzing the types, publication times, and sources of literatures and following the evidence grade criteria of Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Result 99 literatures are incorporated in total, from 52 kinds of Chinese periodicals, published from 1995 to 2015. There is no literature with Recommendation Grade A; 4 literatures with Recommendation Grade B, whose evidence levels are all 3b; 78 literatures falling under Recommendation Grade C, with evidence levels all being 4; and 17 literatures with Recommendation Grade D and Evidence Level 5. Among these literatures, Chinese Journal of Dermatology, Journal of Clinical Dermatology, and The Chinese Journal of Dermatovenereology contribute 8 respectively, all falling under Evidence Levels 4 and 5. Conclusion Most of the Chinese literatures about acne inversa are at low evidence level, obviously limiting their guiding significance for clinical work. Current domestic scholars are prompted to attach importance to the sorting, analysis, and learning of existing literatures at low evidence level and meanwhile actively conduct clinical research at high evidence level.