Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.320.7234.537
复制
发表时间：
2000-02-26
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Stevens, R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jadad, AR;Moher, M;Stevens, R
目的 评估哮喘治疗的系统综述和荟萃分析在临床、方法学和报告方面的情况，并比较Cochrane协作网发表的与纸质期刊发表的相关内容。
设计 对从Medline、CINAHL、HealthSTAR、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、个人收藏以及参考文献列表中确定的研究进行分析。
研究 描述哮喘治疗的系统综述或荟萃分析的文章，以任何语言或格式作为完整报告发表在经同行评审的期刊或Cochrane图书馆中。
主要结局指标 所综述研究的一般特征和方法学特征（文章来源；语言限制；所纳入研究的格式、设计和发表状态；数据综合类型；方法学质量）。
结果 纳入了50项系统综述和荟萃分析。超过一半是在过去两年发表的。12项综述发表在Cochrane图书馆，38项发表在2种经同行评审的期刊上。一秒用力呼气量是最常用的结局指标，但很少有综述评估治疗对成本或患者偏好的影响。40项综述被判定存在严重或广泛的缺陷。与企业相关的6项综述都在此类中。10项最严谨的综述中有7项发表在Cochrane图书馆。
结论 大多数发表在经同行评审期刊上或由企业资助的综述存在严重的方法学缺陷，限制了其指导决策的价值。Cochrane综述比发表在经同行评审期刊上的综述更严谨，报告也更好。
Objective To evaluate the clinical, methodological, and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the treatment of asthma and to compare those published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper based journals.Design. Analysis of studies identified from Medline, CINAHL. HealthSTAR, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, personal collections, and reference lists.Studies Articles describing a systematic review or a meta-analysis of the treatment of asthma that were published as a full report, in any language or format, in a peer reviewed journal or the Cochrane Library.Main outcome measures General characteristics of studies reviewed and methodological characteristics (sources of articles; language restrictions; format, design and publication status of studies included; type of data synthesis; and methodological quality).Results 50 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. More than half were published in the past two years. Twelve reviews were published in the Cochrane Library and 38 were published in 2 peer reviewed journals. Forced expiratory volume in one second was the most frequently used outcome, but few reviews evaluated the effect of treatment on costs or patient preferences. Forty reviews were judged to have serious or extensive nd rvs. All six reviews associated with industry were in this group. Seven of the 10 most rigorous reviews were published in the Cochrane Library.Conclusions Most reviews published in peer reviewed journals or funded by industry have serious methodological flaws that limit their value to guide decisions. Cochrane reviews are more rigorous and better reported than those published in peer reviewed journals.