Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses - A comparison of COCHRANE reviews with articles published in paper-based journals
Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses - A comparison of COCHRANE reviews with articles published in paper-based journals
复制标题
DOI：
10.1001/jama.280.3.278
复制
发表时间：
1998-07-15
影响因子：
120.7
通讯作者：
Moher, D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jadad, AR;Cook, DJ;Moher, D
上下文。-综述文章是重要的信息来源，有助于指导临床医生、患者和其他决策者的决策。理想情况下，评论应该包括最小化偏见和最大化准确性的策略，并明确地报告，以便任何感兴趣的读者都能复制它们。-比较Cochrane协作网发表的系统综述和荟萃分析的方法学和报告方面与MEDLINE索引的纸质期刊上发表的综述和荟萃分析。数据源。——Cochrane Library， 1995年第2期，以及MEDLINE 1995年的检索。研究选择。-在Cochrane系统评价数据库中发表的36篇已完成的综述和随机选择的39篇发表在MEDLINE索引期刊上的荟萃分析或系统评价的样本。数据提取。-作者、试验和患者数量；试验来源;纳入和排除标准；语言的限制;主要结果;试验质量评估；异构性测试;以及效果估计。评估到1997年的更新情况。与Cochrane综述相比，MEDLINE综述包括更多的作者（中位数，3 vs 2, P < 0.001）、更多的试验（中位数，13.5 vs 5, P < 0.001）和更多的患者（中位数，1280 vs 528, P < 0.001）。然而，更多的Cochrane综述包括对纳入和排除标准的描述（35/36 vs 18/39; P < .001）和评估试验质量（36/36 vs 12/39; P < .001）。没有Cochrane综述有语言限制（0/36 vs 7/39; P < 0.01），在试验来源、异质性检验或效应估计描述方面没有差异。到1997年6月，36篇Cochrane综述中有18篇更新，而medline的39篇综述中只有1篇更新。-Cochrane综述似乎在方法上更严格，比发表在纸质期刊上的系统综述或荟萃分析更频繁地更新。
Context.-Review articles are important sources of information to help guide decisions by clinicians, patients, and other decision makers. Ideally, reviews should include strategies to minimize bias and to maximize precision and be reported so explicitly that any interested reader would be able to replicate them.Objective.-To compare the methodological and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper-based journals indexed in MEDLINE.Data Sources.-The Cochrane Library, issue 2 of 1995, and a search of MEDLINE restricted to 1995.Study Selection.-All 36 completed reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and a randomly selected sample of 39 meta-analyses or systematic reviews published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in 1995.Data Extraction.-Number of authors, trials, and patients; trial sources; inclusion and exclusion criteria; language restrictions; primary outcome; trial quality assessment; heterogeneity testing; and effect estimates. Updating by 1997 was evaluated.Results.-Reviews found in MEDLINE included more authors (median, 3 vs 2; P < .001), more trials (median, 13.5 vs 5; P < .001), and more patients (median, 1280 vs 528; P < .001) than Cochrane reviews. More Cochrane reviews, however, included a description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (35/36 vs 18/39; P < .001) and assessed trial quality (36/36 vs 12/39; P < .001). No Cochrane reviews had language restrictions (0/36 vs 7/39; P < .01), There were no differences in sources of trials, heterogeneity testing, or description of effect estimates. By June 1997, 18 of 36 Cochrane reviews had been updated vs 1 of 39 reviews listed in MEDLINE.Conclusions.-Cochrane reviews appear to have greater methodological rigor and are more frequently updated than systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in paper-based journals.