|
| |
|
| 本文已被：浏览 1966次 下载 3017次 |
码上扫一扫！ |
| 超声内镜诊断类系统评价/meta分析现状 |
| 刘丹璐1,2,3,王晓锋1,靳佳欣4,杨克虎1,2,3* |
|
|
(1. 兰州大学第一临床医学院, 兰州 730000;
2. 兰州大学循证医学中心, 兰州大学基础医学院, 兰州 730000;
3. 甘肃省循证医学与临床转化重点实验室, 兰州 730000;
4. 兰州大学第二临床医学院, 兰州 730030
*通信作者) |
|
| 摘要: |
| 目的 分析当前国内外发表的超声内镜诊断类系统评价(SRs)/meta分析(MAs)的研究现状。方法 计算机检索PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、万方数据库、中文科技期刊数据库,检索时间均为建库至2013年7月。根据纳入、排除标准收集有关超声内镜诊断的SRs/MAs,由2名评价员分别进行文献筛选,并按照预先设计的资料提取表进行资料提取。结果 共纳入SRs/MAs 72篇,发表数量从1998年的1篇增加至2012年的16篇,涉及病种以消化系统疾病居首(75.0%,54/72),其次为呼吸系统疾病(8.3%,6/72)；90.3%(65/72)SRs/MAs以英文形式发表,其余以中文形式发表；87.5%(63/72)的SRs/MAs被科学引文索引(SCI)收录；93.1%(67/72)的SRs/MAs作者来源自同一个国家,其中第一作者主要分布于中国(31.9%,23/72)和美国(30.6%,22/72),国际合作研究仅5篇；77.8%(56/72)的SRs/MAs由一个机构(如医院、大学、研究所)完成。在图表使用类型方面,以纳入研究特征表(84.7%,61/72)、森林图(72.2%,52/72)居多。英文SRs/MAs参考文献数量约为中文的2.5倍,且近5年的数量较高。中英文SRs/MAs被引用率平均仅36.3次。54.2%(39/72)的SRs/MAs使用Cochrane Handbook 5.1推荐的QUADAS工具评价原始研究质量,38.9%(28/72)的研究未报告质量评价的方法。所有纳入中文SRs/MAs均未报告基金资助信息。结论 超声内镜诊断类SRs/MAs研究的数量呈逐年增长趋势,国内外的研究者需加强不同国家不同研究机构间的合作及方法学人员的参与,鼓励使用诊断类质量评价QUADAS工具,严格按照PRISMA报告标准使用流程图及漏斗图。 |
| 关键词: 超声内镜 诊断 系统评价 meta分析 现状分析 |
| DOI：10.3724/SP.J.1008.2014.01109 |
| 投稿时间：2014-01-08修订日期：2014-06-20 |
| 基金项目: |
|
| Analysis of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis |
| LIU Dan-lu1,2,3,WANG Xiao-feng1,JIN Jia-xin4,YANG Ke-hu1,2,3* |
(1. The First Clinical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, China;
2. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Science of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, China;
3. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Translational Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, China;
4. The Second Clinical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730030, Gansu, China
*Corresponding authors) |
| Abstract: |
| Objective To analyze the status of systematic review(SRs)/meta-analyses(MAs) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) diagnosis. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database from the starting to July, 2013 for related publications. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, SRs/MAs of EUS for diagnosis were collected. Articles were screened by two reviewers and the process of extraction was done by pre-designed table. Results A total of 72 SRs/MAs were included in the present paper. The number of papers ranged from one in 1998 to 16 in 2012. The fields of disease were mainly related to digestive system (54/72,75.0%) and respiratory system (6/72,8.3%). Most of the papers (65/72,90.3%) were published in English and the rest (9.7%[7/72]) in Chinese. Totally 87.5%(63/72) of the papers were published in journals indexed by Science Citation Index. The majority of papers (67/72,93.1%) had their authors from the same country. The first authors of the included papers were mainly from China(23/72,31.9%) and the United States (22/72,30.6%), only with 5 studies done with international cooperation; and 77.8% (56/72) of the papers were completed by one institution (such as a hospital, a college or an institute). The characteristics table of included studies (61/72,84.7%) and forest plot (52/72,72.2%) were most frequently used. The number of references in English literature was about 2.5 times that of Chinese one, and the English papers had more references of the latest five years than the Chinese one. The average cites of SRs/MAs was only 36.3 in our study. It was found that 54.2% (39/72) SRs/MAs used QUADAS standard for assessing the quality of original research, which was recommended by Cochrane Handbook 5.1; there were still 38.9% (28/72) SRs/MAs did not report their quality assessment tool. No included Chinese paper reported fund support. Conclusion SRs/MAs of EUS for diagnosis is increasing on an annual basis. International cooperation should be improved among researchers for SRs/MAs studies and methodology researchers should be included for the study. QUADAS as diagnostic quality assessment tool should be encouraged. Flow chart and funnel plot should be strictly applied according to PRISMA statement. |
| Key words: endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis systematic review meta-analysis status analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
