The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study
The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study
复制标题
荟萃分析的报告质量提高：随机抽样研究
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008
复制
发表时间：
2008-08-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Tian, Wei
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wen, Jin;Ren, Yu;Tian, Wei
目的：确定基于QUOROM声明的随机对照试验（RCT）的荟萃分析（QUOROM）报告的总体质量，比较纸质文献和科克伦综述的报告质量，并确定对声明的依从性是否随时间而提高。研究设计和设置：随机抽取Medline 2000-2005年的系统评价或Meta分析的RCT文献。平均QUOROM评分为12.3（95%置信区间[CI]：12.0，12.6），从2000年的10.5（95% CI：8.8，12.1）上升至2005年的13.0（95% CI：12.2，13.8）。科克伦综述和纸质文献的平均QUOROM评分分别为14.2（95% CI：13.9，14.5）和11.7（95% CI：11.3，12.1）。与纸质文献相比，科克伦综述的摘要部分报告质量较好，而其试验流程的质量较差。大多数QUOROM项目的完成情况随着时间的推移而改善。QUOROM评分与时间的线性关系revealed.Conclusions：荟萃分析的报告质量随着时间的推移而提高。与纸质文献相比，科克伦综述的报告质量更好。科克伦和纸质文献的报告质量仍有改进的空间。(c)2008年爱思唯尔公司All rights reserved.
Objectives: To determine the overall quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUOROMs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on the QUOROM statement, to compare the reporting quality of paper-based articles and Cochrane reviews, and to determine whether compliance with the statement improves over time.Study Design and Setting: A random sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of RCTs was selected from Medline (2000-2005).Results: A total of 161 articles were included. The mean QUOROM score was 12.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.0, 12.6), which rose from 10.5 (95% CI: 8.8, 12.1) in 2000 to 13.0 (95% CI: 12.2, 13.8) in 2005. The mean QUOROM scores of Cochrane reviews and paper-based articles were 14.2 (95% Cl: 13.9, 14.5) and 11.7 (95% Cl: 11.3, 12.1), respectively. Compared with the paper-based articles, the Cochrane reviews had better reporting quality in the abstract section, while the quality of their trial flows was poor. The fulfillment of most QUOROM items improved with time. A linear relation of the QUOROM score with time was revealed.Conclusions: The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves with time. The reporting quality of Cochrane reviews is better compared with paper-based articles. Room still exists for improvements in the reporting quality of both Cochrane and paper-based articles. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.