Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature
Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature
复制标题
DOI：
10.1067/mem.2001.115881
复制
发表时间：
2001-11-01
影响因子：
6.2
通讯作者：
Rowe, BH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kelly, KD;Travers, A;Rowe, BH
研究目的：本研究的目的是检验5种领先的急诊医学期刊上发表的系统评价的科学质量。方法：通过电子方式检索MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库以识别已发表的系统评价，仅在过去10年的急诊医学期刊中进行检索；其中 4 种期刊也经过手工检索，潜在评论由 2 名审稿人独立评估以纳入。有关方法的数据由 2 名评审员独立从每个评审中提取。所有系统评价均通过概述质量评估问卷中的 10 个问题进行检索和质量评级。结果：从 100 多次引用中识别出 29 条评价。系统评价的整体科学质量较低（平均分 2.7；95% 置信区间 2.1 至 3.2；最高可能分 7.0）。在这本评论集中很少涉及选择和出版偏见。例如，仅在 9 (31%) 篇综述中确定了检索策略，而很少进行独立研究选择 (6 [21%]) 和纳入研究的质量评估 (9 [31%])。总体而言，大多数综述存在广泛缺陷，只有 3 篇（10%）存在微小缺陷。 结论：研究结果表明，急诊医学文献中发表的许多系统综述都存在重大缺陷；方法不当的审查可能会限制报告结果的有效性。应进一步努力改进急诊医学系统评价的设计、报告和出版。
Study objective: The objective of this study was to examine the scientific quality of systematic reviews published in 5 leading emergency medicine journals.Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were electronically searched to identify published systematic reviews, Searches were only conducted in emergency medicine journals during the past 10 years; 4 of the journals were also hand searched, Potential reviews were assessed independently by 2 reviewers for inclusion. Data regarding methods were extracted from each review independently by 2 reviewers. All systematic reviews were retrieved and rated for quality by using the 10 questions from the overview quality assessment questionnaire.Results: Twenty-nine reviews were identified from more than 100 citations. The overall scientific quality of the systematic reviews was low (mean score, 2.7; 95% confidence interval 2.1 to 3.2; maximum possible score, 7.0). Selection and publication biases were rarely addressed in this collection of reviews. For example, the search strategies were only identified in 9 (31%) reviews, whereas independent study selection (6 [21%]) and quality assessment of included studies (9 [31%]) were infrequently performed. Overall, the majority of reviews had extensive flaws, and only 3 (10%) had minimal flaws.Conclusion: The results of the study indicate that many of the systematic reviews published in the emergency medicine literature contain major flaws; reviews with poor methodology may limit the validity of reported results. Further efforts should be made to improve the design, reporting, and publication of systematic reviews in emergency medicine.