AN EMPIRICAL-STUDY OF THE POSSIBLE RELATION OF TREATMENT DIFFERENCES TO QUALITY SCORES IN CONTROLLED RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIALS
AN EMPIRICAL-STUDY OF THE POSSIBLE RELATION OF TREATMENT DIFFERENCES TO QUALITY SCORES IN CONTROLLED RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIALS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/0197-2456(90)90175-2
复制
发表时间：
1990-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
CHALMERS, TC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
EMERSON, JD;BURDICK, E;CHALMERS, TC
荟萃分析研究有时根据正式协议使用研究质量评估作为改进研究综合的工具。我们询问特定的质量评分系统是否可以直接用于调整治疗差异的汇总估计。在已发表的对 7 组对照随机临床试验（包括 107 项初步研究）的荟萃分析中，对质量评分与治疗差异之间的关系进行了实证研究，我们发现治疗差异与总体质量评分之间没有关系。我们还发现质量评分与治疗差异的变化之间没有关系。三十年来，质量得分水平以每十年 9% 的速度增长，在 20 世纪 80 年代，从 0 到 1 的等级平均为 0.51，还有很大的改进空间。尽管如此，编辑、审稿人和作者对研究质量的关注可能会提高研究水平和报告质量。
Meta-analytic investigations sometimes use assessments of research quality according to a formal protocol as a tool for improving research synthesis. We asked whether a particular quality scoring system could have a direct use in adjusting the summary estimates of a treatment difference. In an empirical study of the relation of quality scores to treatment differences in published meta-analyses of 7 groups of controlled randomized clinical trials comprising 107 primary studies, we found no relation between treatment difference and overall quality score. We also found no relation between quality score and variation in treatment difference. The level of quality scores has increased at a rate of 9% per decade for three decades, averaging 0.51 on a scale of 0 to 1 for the 1980s, and leaving much room for improvement. Nevertheless, attention to quality of studies by editors, reviewers, and authors may be raising both the level of research done and quality of the reports.