PRISMA系统评价方法.ppt
PRISMA-P中英文版
10
Present draft of search strategy to be used for at least one electronic database, including planned limits, such that it could be repeated
5c
Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s), and/or institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol
Introduction
Rationale
6
Describethe rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.a
Outcomes and prioritization
13
List and define all outcomes for which data will be sought, including prioritization of main and additional outcomes, with rationale
管理信息
标题
识别
1a
从标题可以识别报告是系统评价的计划书
更新
1b
从标题可以识别计划书是对之前发表的的系统评价进行更新
注册
2
如果已经注册,请提供注册处和注册号
作者
联系
3a
提供参与计划书的所有作者姓名,所属机构单位,以及邮箱;提供通讯作者的详细通讯地址
贡献
3b
描述计划书中各个作者的贡献,并且明确担保人
GRADE方法及系统评价的质量评价
GRADE证据质量评价与推荐强度评级
GRADE将证据质量分为高、中、低、极低4级， 推荐强度分为强、弱2级，对应解释如下： 证据质量
高： 非常确信（很有把握认为真实值与估计值接近） 中： 信心一般（真实值可能与估计值接近，但存在二者
完全不同的可能性） 低： 信心有限（真实值可能与估计值完全不同） 极低：几乎没什么信心（估计值很不确定）
指标 偏倚与机遇的关系示意图
9
（一）偏倚 偏倚的分类 ➢ 选择性偏倚（selection bias） ➢ 测量性偏倚（measurement bias） ➢ 混杂性偏倚（confounding bias）
10
1.选择性偏倚（selection bias）
定义： 不正确地选择了研究对象，使研
究开始时，两组研究对象就存在除研 究因素以外的其它因素分布的不均衡 性，因而导致研究结果与真实情况之 间产生差异。
120
心肌梗死
有
无
240
30
580
300
心肌梗死
有
无
160
570
20
100
吸烟率（%） 27 88
RR=1.35>1
RR=1.32>1
20
偏倚防控
策略:
➢ 制定研究方案（计划书）时：
• 遵循科研设计基本原则（随机、对照、盲法、基线可比） • 参照相关质量评价标准 • 根据偏倚类型、产生阶段及产生原因合理选择控制措施
7
偏倚与机遇的关系：
共性：
不同点： 本质 方向性 能否避免 控制方法
偏倚
任何类型研究 任何研究阶段
影响真实性
机遇
系统误差 有 能
完善设计、分析手段， 客观测量
系统评价报告规范PRISMA 2020与PRISMA 2009的对比分析与实例解读
•606. CHINESE JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, May 2021, Vol. 21, No.5•方法学•系统评价报告规范:PRISMA2020与PRISMA2009的对比分析与实例解读高亚刘明u，杨珂璐“2,葛龙3’4,李伦5，李江6,孙凤7,杨智荣8，武珊珊9，董圣杰ie，张天嵩"，肖月12,吴嘉瑞13,张俊华14,卞兆祥15’16，田金徽U21. 兰州大学基础医学院循证医学中心（兰州730000)2. 甘肃省循证医学与临床转化重点实验室（兰州730000)3. 兰州大学公共卫生学院循证社会科学研究中心（兰州730000)4. 兰州大学公共卫生学院社会医学与卫生事业管理研究所（兰州730000)5. 中南大学湘雅二医院乳腺科（长沙410083)6.国家癌症中心/中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院（北京100021)7. 北京大学公共卫生学院流行病与卫生统计学系，北京大学循证医学中心（北京100191)8. 英国剑桥大学临床医学院初级医疗中心（英国剑桥C B1 8R N)9. 首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院国家消化系统疾病临床医学研究中心（北京100050)10. 烟台市烟台山医院骨关节科（山东烟台264000)11. 复旦大学附属静安区中心医院中医科（上海200040)12. 国家卫生健康委卫生发展研究中心（北京100191)13. 北京中医药大学中药学院（北京100029)14. 天津中医药大学循证医学中心（天津300193)15. 香港浸会大学中医药学院（中国香港999077)16. 中国E Q U A T O R中心（中国香港999077)【摘要】系统评价/M eta分析报告规范（PRISMA)旨在增加系统评价报告的透明度和提高系统评价的报告质量。
PRISMA 2020是对PRISMA 2009的更新和修订，其于2021年3月发表在杂志。
GRADE方法及系统评价的质量评价PPT课件
少两人独立地进行） • 是否提供了纳入研究特征表或用文字表述 • 综合各研究结果的方法是否恰当 • 得出结论时是否考虑了纳入研究的质量 • 是否申明利益冲突 • ……
精选ppt2021最新
37
系统评价再评价工具
➢ 方法学质量评价工具：OQAQ和AMSTAR ➢ 报告质量评价工具：PRISMA
高： 非常确信（很有把握认为真实值与估计值接近） 中： 信心一般（真实值可能与估计值接近，但存在二者
完全不同的可能性） 低： 信心有限（真实值可能与估计值完全不同） 极低：几乎没什么信心（估计值很不确定）
推荐强度
强：明确显示干预措施利大于弊或弊大于利 弱：利弊不确定或无论质量高低的证据均显示利弊相当
24
上述译文见《中国循证医学杂志》，原文见Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
其他资源：GRADE工作组主页(/)
精选ppt2021最新
25
GRADE证据质量评价与推荐强度评级
GRADE将证据质量分为高、中、低、极低4级， 推荐强度分为强、弱2级，对应解释如下： 证据质量
吸烟
有
无
270
730
880
120
心肌梗死
有
无
240
30
580
300
心肌梗死
系统评价报告规范PRISMA
1Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses:The PRISMA StatementDavid Moher1,2*,Alessandro Liberati3,4,Jennifer Tetzlaff1,Douglas G.Altman5,The PRISMA Group"1Ottawa Methods Centre,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute,Ottawa,Ontario,Canada,2Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine,Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa,Ottawa,Ontario,Canada,3Universita`di Modena e Reggio Emilia,Modena,Italy,4Centro Cochrane Italiano,Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri,Milan,Italy,5Centre for Statistics in Medicine,University of Oxford,Oxford,United KingdomIntroductionSystematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care.Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field[1,2],and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines.Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research[3],and some health care journals are moving in this direction[4].As with all research,the value of a systematic review depends on what was done,what was found,and the clarity of reporting.As with other publications,the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies,limiting readers’ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports.In 1987,Mulrow examined50review articles published in four leading medical journals in1985and1986and found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria,such as a quality assessment of included studies[5].In1987,Sacks and colleagues[6]evaluated the adequacy of reporting of83meta-analyses on23characteristics in six domains. Reporting was generally poor;between one and14characteristics were adequately reported(mean=7.7;standard deviation=2.7).A 1996update of this study found little improvement[7].In1996,to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement(QU ality O f R eporting O f M eta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials[8].In this article,we summarize a revision of these guidelines,renamed PRISMA(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses),which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews(Box1).TerminologyThe terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time.One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses.We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration[9].A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify,select,and critically appraise relevant research,and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review.Statistical methods (meta-analysis)may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies.Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies.Developing the PRISMA StatementA three-day meeting was held in Ottawa,Canada,in June2005 with29participants,including review authors,methodologists,clinicians,medical editors,and a consumer.The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram,as needed.The executive committee completed the following tasks,prior to the meeting:a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews,and a comprehensive literature search to identify methodological and other articles that might inform the meeting,especially in relation to modifying checklist items.An international survey of review authors,consumers,and groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and meta-analyses was completed,including the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment(INAHTA)and the Guidelines International Network(GIN).The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM,including the merits of the existing checklist items.The results of these activities were presented during the meeting and are summarized on the PRISMA Web site (/).Only items deemed essential were retained or added to the checklist.Some additional items are nevertheless desirable,and review authors should include these,if relevant[10].For example, it is useful to indicate whether the systematic review is an update [11]of a previous review,and to describe any changes in procedures from those described in the original protocol. Citation:Moher D,Liberati A,Tetzlaff J,Altman DG,The PRISMA Group(2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses:The PRISMA Statement.PLoS Med6(7):e1000097.doi:10.1371/ journal.pmed.1000097Published July21,2009Copyright:ß2009Moher et al.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use,distribution,and reproduction in any medium,provided the original author and source are credited.Funding:PRISMA was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Universita`di Modena e Reggio Emilia,Italy;Cancer Research UK;Clinical Evidence BMJ Knowledge;the Cochrane Collaboration;and GlaxoSmithKline,Canada.AL is funded,in part,through grants of the Italian Ministry of University(COFIN-PRIN 2002prot.2002061749and COFIN-PRIN2006prot.2006062298).DGA is funded by Cancer Research UK.DM is funded by a University of Ottawa Research Chair. None of the sponsors had any involvement in the planning,execution,or write-up of the PRISMA documents.Additionally,no funder played a role in drafting the manuscript.Competing Interests:The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.Abbreviations:PRISMA,Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses;QUOROM,QU ality O f R eporting O f M eta-analyses. Provenance:Not commissioned;externally peer reviewed.In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA Statement,this article is freely accessible on the PLoS Medicine Web site(/)and will be also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine,BMJ,Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Open Medicine.The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article.For details on further use,see the PRISMA Web site(http://www.prisma-statement. org/)."Membership of the PRISMA Group is provided in the Acknowledgments.*E-mail:dmoher@ohri.caShortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA checklist was circulated to the group,including those invited to the meeting but unable to attend.A disposition file was created containing comments and revisions from each respondent,and the checklist was subsequently revised11times.The group approved the checklist,flow diagram,and this summary paper.Although no direct evidence was found to support retaining or adding some items,evidence from other domains was believed to be relevant.For example,Item5asks authors to provide registration information about the systematic review,including a registration number,if available.Although systematic review registration is not yet widely available[12,13],the participating journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors(ICMJE)[14]now require all clinical trials to be registered in an effort to increase transparency and accountability[15]. Those aspects are also likely to benefit systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an excessive number of reviews addressing the same question[16,17]and providing greater transparency when updating systematic reviews.The PRISMA StatementThe PRISMA Statement consists of a27-item checklist(Table1; see also Text S1for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use)and a four-phase flow diagram(Figure1;see also Figure S1for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.We have focused on randomized trials,but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research,particularly evaluations of interventions.PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews.However,the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review.From QUOROM to PRISMAThe new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist,and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2.Generally,the PRISMA checklist ‘‘decouples’’several items present in the QUOROM checklist and,where applicable,several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report.The flow diagram has also been modified.Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others,the review team must first search the literature.This search results in records. Once these records have been screened and eligibility criteria applied,a smaller number of articles will remain.The number of included articles might be smaller(or larger)than the number of studies,because articles may report on multiple studies and results from a particular study may be published in several articles.To capture this information,the PRISMA flow diagram now requests information on these phases of the review process. EndorsementThe PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM State-ment for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM.We hope that other journals will support PRISMA;they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Web site.To underscore to authors,and others,the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews,we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA Web address in their Instructions to Authors.We also invite editorial organizations to consider endorsing PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles.The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper In addition to the PRISMA Statement,a supporting Explana-tion and Elaboration document has been produced[18]following the style used for other reporting guidelines[19–21].The processBox1:Conceptual Issues in the Evolution from QUOROM to PRISMACompleting a Systematic Review Is an Iterative Process The conduct of a systematic review depends heavily on the scope and quality of included studies:thus systematic reviewers may need to modify their original review protocol during its conduct.Any systematic review reporting guideline should recommend that such changes can be reported and explained without suggesting that they are inappropriate.The PRISMA Statement(Items5,11, 16,and23)acknowledges this iterative process.Aside from Cochrane reviews,all of which should have a protocol, only about10%of systematic reviewers report working from a protocol[22].Without a protocol that is publicly accessible,it is difficult to judge between appropriate and inappropriate modifications.Conduct and Reporting Research Are Distinct Concepts This distinction is,however,less straightforward for systematic reviews than for assessments of the reporting of an individual study, because the reporting and conduct of systematic reviews are,by nature,closely intertwined.For example,the failure of a systematic review to report the assessment of the risk of bias in included studies may be seen as a marker of poor conduct,given the importance of this activity in the systematic review process[37].Study-Level Versus Outcome-Level Assessment of Risk of Bias For studies included in a systematic review,a thorough assessment of the risk of bias requires both a ‘‘study-level’’assessment(e.g.,adequacy of allocation concealment)and,for some features,a newer approach called‘‘outcome-level’’assessment.An outcome-level assessment involves evaluating the reliability and validity of the data for each important outcome by determining the methods used to assess them in each individual study [38].The quality of evidence may differ across outcomes, even within a study,such as between a primary efficacy outcome,which is likely to be very carefully and systematically measured,and the assessment of serious harms[39],which may rely on spontaneous reports by investigators.This information should be reported to allow an explicit assessment of the extent to which an estimate of effect is correct[38].Importance of Reporting Biases Different types of reporting biases may hamper the conduct and interpretation of systematic reviews.Selective reporting of complete studies(e.g.,publication bias)[28]as well as the more recently empirically demonstrated‘‘outcome reporting bias’’within individual studies[40,41]should be considered by authors when conducting a systematic review and reporting its results.Though the implications of these biases on the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews themselves are unclear,some previous research has identified that selective outcome reporting may occur also in the context of systematic reviews[42].of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item,and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item.The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face to face meetings and numerous iterations among several meeting participants,after which it was shared with the whole group for additional revisions and final approval.Finally,the group formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate and implement PRISMA.DiscussionThe quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal [22–27].In a recent review of 300systematic reviews,few authors reported assessing possible publication bias [22],even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence [28]and its impact on the results of systematic reviews [29].Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed,there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately [30].Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done,reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review.Several approaches have been developed to conduct systematic reviews on a broader array of questions.For example,systematicreviews are now conducted to investigate cost-effectiveness [31],diagnostic [32]or prognostic questions [33],genetic associations [34],and policy making [35].The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA are all relevant to any systematic review,not just those whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms of a health care intervention.However,some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances.For example,assessing the risk of bias is a key concept,but the items used to assess this in a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease status,which differ from reviews of interventions.The flow diagram will also need adjustments when reporting individual patient data meta-analysis [36].We have developed an explanatory document [18]to increase the usefulness of PRISMA.For each checklist item,this document contains an example of good reporting,a rationale for its inclusion,and supporting evidence,including references,whenever possible.We believe this document will also serve as a useful resource for those teaching systematic review methodology.We encourage journals to include reference to the explanatory document in their Instructions to Authors.Like any evidence-based endeavor,PRISMA is a living document.To this end we invite readers to comment on the revised version,particularly the new checklist and flow diagram,through the PRISMA Web site.We will use such information to inform PRISMA’s continueddevelopment.Figure 1.Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.g001Table1.Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis.Section/Topic#Checklist Item Reported on Page#TITLETitle1Identify the report as a systematic review,meta-analysis,or both.ABSTRACTStructured summary2Provide a structured summary including,as applicable:background;objectives;data sources;study eligibilitycriteria,participants,and interventions;study appraisal and synthesis methods;results;limitations;conclusionsand implications of key findings;systematic review registration number.INTRODUCTIONRationale3Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.Objectives4Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants,interventions,comparisons,outcomes,and study design(PICOS).METHODSProtocol and registration5Indicate if a review protocol exists,if and where it can be accessed(e.g.,Web address),and,if available,provideregistration information including registration number.Eligibility criteria6Specify study characteristics(e.g.,PICOS,length of follow-up)and report characteristics(e.g.,years considered,language,publication status)used as criteria for eligibility,giving rationale.Information sources7Describe all information sources(e.g.,databases with dates of coverage,contact with study authors to identifyadditional studies)in the search and date last searched.Search8Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database,including any limits used,such that it could berepeated.Study selection9State the process for selecting studies(i.e.,screening,eligibility,included in systematic review,and,if applicable,included in the meta-analysis).Data collection process10Describe method of data extraction from reports(e.g.,piloted forms,independently,in duplicate)and anyprocesses for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.Data items11List and define all variables for which data were sought(e.g.,PICOS,funding sources)and any assumptions andsimplifications made.Risk of bias in individual studies 12Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies(including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level),and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.Summary measures13State the principal summary measures(e.g.,risk ratio,difference in means).Synthesis of results14Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies,if done,including measures ofconsistency(e.g.,I2)for each meta-analysis.Risk of bias across studies15Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence(e.g.,publication bias,selectivereporting within studies).Additional analyses16Describe methods of additional analyses(e.g.,sensitivity or subgroup analyses,meta-regression),if done,indicating which were pre-specified.RESULTSStudy selection17Give numbers of studies screened,assessed for eligibility,and included in the review,with reasons for exclusionsat each stage,ideally with a flow diagram.Study characteristics18For each study,present characteristics for which data were extracted(e.g.,study size,PICOS,follow-up period)and provide the citations.Risk of bias within studies19Present data on risk of bias of each study and,if available,any outcome-level assessment(see Item12). Results of individual studies20For all outcomes considered(benefits or harms),present,for each study:(a)simple summary data for eachintervention group and(b)effect estimates and confidence intervals,ideally with a forest plot.Synthesis of results21Present results of each meta-analysis done,including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.Risk of bias across studies22Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies(see Item15).Additional analysis23Give results of additional analyses,if done(e.g.,sensitivity or subgroup analyses,meta-regression[see Item16]). DISCUSSIONSummary of evidence24Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome;consider theirrelevance to key groups(e.g.,health care providers,users,and policy makers).Limitations25Discuss limitations at study and outcome level(e.g.,risk of bias),and at review level(e.g.,incomplete retrieval ofidentified research,reporting bias).Conclusions26Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence,and implications for futureresearch.FUNDINGFunding27Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support(e.g.,supply of data);role of funders forthe systematic review.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.t001Supporting InformationFigure S1Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review(downloadable template document for researchers to re-use).Found at:doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.s001(0.08MB DOC)Text S1Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis(downloadable tem-plate document for researchers to re-use).Found at:doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.s002(0.04MB DOC)AcknowledgmentsThe following people contributed to the PRISMA Statement:Doug Altman,DSc,Centre for Statistics in Medicine(Oxford,UK);Gerd Antes,PhD,University Hospital Freiburg(Freiburg,Germany);David Atkins,MD,MPH,Health Services Research and Development Service, Veterans Health Administration(Washington, D. C.,US);Virginia Barbour,MRCP,DPhil,PLoS Medicine(Cambridge,UK);Nick Barrow-man,PhD,Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario(Ottawa,Canada); Jesse A.Berlin,ScD,Johnson&Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development(Titusville,New Jersey,US);Jocalyn Clark,PhD,PLoS Medicine(at the time of writing,BMJ,London,UK);Mike Clarke,PhD, UK Cochrane Centre(Oxford,UK)and School of Nursing and Midwifery,Trinity College(Dublin,Ireland);Deborah Cook,MD, Departments of Medicine,Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University(Hamilton,Canada);Roberto D’Amico,PhD, Universita`di Modena e Reggio Emilia(Modena,Italy)and Centro Cochrane Italiano,Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri (Milan,Italy);Jonathan J.Deeks,PhD,University of Birmingham (Birmingham,UK);P.J.Devereaux,MD,PhD,Departments of Medicine,Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics,McMaster University (Hamilton,Canada);Kay Dickersin,PhD,Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health(Baltimore,Maryland,US);Matthias Egger, MD,Department of Social and Preventive Medicine,University of Bern (Bern,Switzerland);Edzard Ernst,MD,PhD,FRCP,FRCP(Edin), Peninsula Medical School(Exeter,UK);Peter C.Gøtzsche,MD,MSc, The Nordic Cochrane Centre(Copenhagen,Denmark);Jeremy Grim-shaw,MBChB,PhD,FRCFP,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Ottawa,Canada);Gordon Guyatt,MD,Departments of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics,McMaster University(Hamilton, Canada);Julian Higgins,PhD,MRC Biostatistics Unit(Cambridge,UK); John P.A.Ioannidis,MD,University of Ioannina Campus(Ioannina, Greece);Jos Kleijnen,MD,PhD,Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (York,UK)and School for Public Health and Primary Care(CAPHRI), University of Maastricht(Maastricht,Netherlands);Tom Lang,MA, Tom Lang Communications and Training(Davis,California,US); Alessandro Liberati,MD,Universita`di Modena e Reggio Emilia (Modena,Italy)and Centro Cochrane Italiano,Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri(Milan,Italy);Nicola Magrini,MD,NHS Centre for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Health Care–CeVEAS (Modena,Italy);David McNamee,PhD,The Lancet(London,UK); Lorenzo Moja,MD,MSc,Centro Cochrane Italiano,Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri(Milan,Italy);David Moher,PhD,Ottawa Methods Centre,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute(Ottawa,Canada); Cynthia Mulrow,MD,MSc,Annals of Internal Medicine(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,US);Maryann Napoli,Center for Medical Consumers (New York,New York,US);Andy Oxman,MD,Norwegian Health Services Research Centre(Oslo,Norway);Ba’Pham,MMath,Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative(Toronto, Canada)(at the time of the first meeting of the group,GlaxoSmithKline Canada,Mississauga,Canada);Drummond Rennie,MD,FRCP,FACP, University of California San Francisco(San Francisco,California,US); Margaret Sampson,MLIS,Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (Ottawa,Canada);Kenneth F.Schulz,PhD,MBA,Family Health International(Durham,North Carolina,US);Paul G.Shekelle,MD, PhD,Southern California Evidence Based Practice Center(Santa Monica,California,US);Jennifer Tetzlaff,BSc,Ottawa Methods Centre,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute(Ottawa,Canada);David Tovey,FRCGP,The Cochrane Library,Cochrane CollaborationTable2.Substantive specific changes between the QUOROM checklist and the PRISMA checklist(a tick indicates the presence of the topic in QUOROM or PRISMA).Section/Topic Item QUOROM PRISMA CommentAbstract!!QUOROM and PRISMA ask authors to report an abstract.However,PRISMA is notspecific about format.Introduction Objective!This new item(4)addresses the explicit question the review addresses using the PICOreporting system(which describes the participants,interventions,comparisons,andoutcome(s)of the systematic review),together with the specification of the type ofstudy design(PICOS);the item is linked to Items6,11,and18of the checklist. Methods Protocol!This new item(5)asks authors to report whether the review has a protocol and if sohow it can be accessed.Methods Search!!Although reporting the search is present in both QUOROM and PRISMA checklists,PRISMA asks authors to provide a full description of at least one electronic searchstrategy(Item8).Without such information it is impossible to repeat the authors’search.Methods Assessment ofrisk of bias inincluded studies !!Renamed from‘‘quality assessment’’in QUOROM.This item(12)is linked withreporting this information in the results(Item19).The new concept of‘‘outcome-level’’assessment has been introduced.Methods Assessment ofrisk of bias acrossstudies !This new item(15)asks authors to describe any assessments of risk of bias in the review,such as selective reporting within the included studies.This item is linkedwith reporting this information in the results(Item22).Discussion!!Although both QUOROM and PRISMA checklists address the discussion section,PRISMA devotes three items(24–26)to the discussion.In PRISMA the main types oflimitations are explicitly stated and their discussion required.Funding!This new item(27)asks authors to provide information on any sources of funding forthe systematic review.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.t002(Oxford,UK)(at the time of the first meeting of the group,BMJ, London,UK);Peter Tugwell,MD,MSc,FRCPC,Institute of Population Health,University of Ottawa(Ottawa,Canada).Author ContributionsICMJE criteria for authorship read and met:DM AL JT DGA.Wrote the first draft of the paper:DM AL DGA.Contributed to the writing of the paper:DM AL JT DGA.Participated in regular conference calls,identified the participants,secured funds,planned the meeting,participated in the meeting,and drafted the manuscript:DM AL DGA.Participated in identifying the evidence base for PRISMA,refining the checklist,and drafting the manuscript:JT.Agree with the recommendations:DM AL JT DGA.References1.Oxman AD,Cook DJ,Guyatt GH(1994)Users’guides to the medical literature.VI.How to use an overview.Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.JAMA 272:1367–1371.2.Swingler GH,Volmink J,Ioannidis JP(2003)Number of published systematicreviews and global burden of disease:Database analysis.BMJ327:1083–1084.3.Canadian Institutes of Health Research(2006)Randomized controlled trialsregistration/application checklist(12/2006).Available:http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf.Accessed19May2009.4.Young C,Horton R(2005)Putting clinical trials into ncet366:107.5.Mulrow CD(1987)The medical review article:State of the science.Ann InternMed106:485–488.6.Sacks HS,Berrier J,Reitman D,Ancona-Berk VA,Chalmers TC(1987)Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.New Engl J Med316:450–455.7.Sacks HS,Reitman D,Pagano D,Kupelnick B(1996)Meta-analysis:An update.Mt Sinai J Med63:216–224.8.Moher D,Cook DJ,Eastwood S,Olkin I,Rennie D,et al.(1994)Improving thequality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials:The QUOROM ncet354:1896–1900.9.Green S,Higgins J,eds(2005)Glossary.Cochrane handbook for systematicreviews of interventions4.2.5.The Cochrane Collaboration.Available:http:// /resources/glossary.htm.Accessed19May2009.10.Strech D,Tilburt J(2008)Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis ofevidence.J Clin Epidemiol61:521–524.11.Moher D,Tsertsvadze A(2006)Systematic reviews:When is an update anupdate?Lancet367:881–883.12.University of York(2009)Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.Available:/inst/crd/.Accessed19May2009.13.The Joanna Briggs Institute(2008)Protocols&work in progress.Available:.au/pubs/systematic_reviews_prot.php.Accessed 19May2009.14.De Angelis C,Drazan JM,Frizelle FA,Haug C,Hoey J,et al.(2004)Clinicaltrial registration:A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.CMAJ171:606–607.15.Whittington CJ,Kendall T,Fonagy P,Cottrell D,Cotgrove A,et al.(2004)Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression:Systematic review of published versus unpublished ncet363:1341–1345.16.Bagshaw SM,McAlister FA,Manns BJ,Ghali WA(2006)Acetylcysteine in theprevention of contrast-induced nephropathy:A case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence.Arch Intern Med166:161–166.17.Biondi-Zoccai GG,Lotrionte M,Abbate A,Testa L,Remigi E,et al.(2006)Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy:Case study.BMJ332:202–209.18.Liberati A,Altman DG,Tetzlaff J,Mulrow C,Gøtzsche P,et al.(2009)ThePRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions:Explanation and elaboration.PLoS Med 6:e1000100.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.19.Altman DG,Schulz KR,Moher D,Egger M,Davidoff F,et al.(2001)Therevised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials:Explanation and elaboration.Ann Intern Med134:663–694.20.Bossuyt PM,Reitsma JB,Bruns DE,Gatsonis CA,Glasziou PP,et al.(2003)Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy:The STARD explanation and elaboration.Ann Intern Med138:W1–W12.21.Vandenbroucke JP,von Elm E,Altman DG,Gøtzsche PC,Mulrow CD,et al.(2007)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE):Explanation and elaboration.Ann Intern Med147:W163–W194.22.Moher D,Tetzlaff J,Tricco AC,Sampson M,Altman DG(2007)Epidemiologyand reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.PLoS Med4:e78.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078.23.Bhandari M,Morrow F,Kulkarni AV,Tornetta P(2001)Meta-analyses inorthopaedic surgery:A systematic review of their methodologies.J Bone Joint Surg Am83-A:15–24.24.Kelly KD,Travers A,Dorgan M,Slater L,Rowe BH(2001)Evaluating thequality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature.Ann Emerg Med38:518–526.25.Richards D(2004)The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry.Evid BasedDent5:17.26.Choi PT,Halpern SH,Malik N,Jadad AR,Tramer MR,et al.(2001)Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature:A critical appraisal of systematic reviews.Anesth Analg92:700–709.27.Delaney A,Bagshaw SM,Ferland A,Manns B,Laupland KB(2005)Asystematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature.Crit Care9:R575–R582.28.Dickersin K(2005)Publication bias:Recognizing the problem,understanding itsorigins and scope,and preventing harm.In:Rothstein HR,Sutton AJ, Borenstein M,eds.Publication bias in meta-analysis-Prevention,assessment and adjustments.Chichester(UK):John Wiley&Sons.pp11–33.29.Sutton AJ(2005)Evidence concerning the consequences of publication andrelated biases.In:Rothstein HR,Sutton AJ,Borenstein M,eds.Publication bias in meta-analysis-Prevention,assessment and adjustments.Chichester(UK):John Wiley&Sons.pp175–192.u J,Ioannidis JP,Terrin N,Schmid CH,Olkin I(2006)The case of themisleading funnel plot.BMJ333:597–600.dabaum U,Chopra CL,Huang G,Scheiman JM,Chernew ME,et al.(2001)Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer:A cost-effectiveness analysis.Ann Intern Med135:769–781.32.Deeks JJ(2001)Systematic reviews in health care:Systematic reviews ofevaluations of diagnostic and screening tests.BMJ323:157–162.33.Altman DG(2001)Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables.BMJ323:224–228.34.Ioannidis JP,Ntzani EE,Trikalinos TA,Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG(2001)Replication validity of genetic association studies.Nat Genet29:306–309. vis J,Davies H,Oxman A,Denis J,Golden-Biddle K,et al.(2005)Towardssystematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making.J Health Serv Res Policy10:35–48.36.Stewart LA,Clarke MJ(1995)Practical methodology of meta-analyses(overviews)using updated individual patient data.Cochrane Working Group.Stat Med14:2057–2079.37.Moja LP,Telaro E,D’Amico R,Moschetti I,Coe L,et al.(2005)Assessment ofmethodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews:Results of the metaquality cross sectional study.BMJ330:1053–1055.38.Guyatt GH,Oxman AD,Vist GE,Kunz R,Falck-Ytter Y,et al.(2008)GRADE:An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ336:924–926.39.Schunemann HJ,Jaeschke R,Cook DJ,Bria WF,El-Solh AA,et al.(2006)Anofficial ATS statement:Grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations.Am J Respir Crit Care Med174:605–614.40.Chan AW,Hrobjartsson A,Haahr MT,Gøtzsche PC,Altman DG(2004)Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles.JAMA291:2457–2465.41.Chan AW,Krleza-Jeric K,Schmid I,Altman DG(2004)Outcome reportingbias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.CMAJ171:735–740.42.Silagy CA,Middleton P,Hopewell S(2002)Publishing protocols of systematicreviews:Comparing what was done to what was planned.JAMA287: 2831–2834.。
系统综述质量评价
系统综述质量评价
系统综述质量评价是对系统综述文章进行全面评价的过程，其目的是为了衡量文章的质量和可信度。
系统综述质量评价通常包括以下方面：
1.研究选题和研究问题的明确性和重要性。
2.搜索策略的合理性和全面性。
3.文献筛选、数据提取和数据分析的透明性和一致性。
4.研究质量评价工具的选择和应用的合理性。
5.数据合成和数据解释的可信度和透明性。
6.讨论和结论的合理性和可行性。
对于系统综述质量评价，一般采用国际上通用的评价工具，如AMSTAR2、PRISMA等。
此外，还可以根据具体研究领域和问题，制定相应的评价标准和指标，如机器学习算法的性能评价指标、临床研究方法评价指标等。
需要注意的是，系统综述质量评价并不是简单的“通过/未通过”的二元分类，而是需要综合考虑多个方面因素的综合评价。
同时，评价者的主观因素也会影响评价结果，因此需要进行多轮评价，确保评价结果的客观性和可靠性。
系统评价和Meta分析1PPT课件
-
12
系统评价（systematic review）
➢选择文献
根据事先制订的纳入标准与排除标准对每一篇文 献进行分析与评价，以确定是否能够入选。
常用于制订纳入标准的因素（试验设计方案、对 照的治疗方法、判断疗效的指标、患者的类别等）。
➢结论
主要说明：①是否能够得出某一疗法有效或无效的 结论，是否可以在临床实践中推广？②如果现有资 料尚不足以下结论，那么对今后研究工作的指导价 值如何？是否需要进一步进行临床试验？
-
17
第二节
Meta分析
（Meta-analysis）
-
18
一、Meta分析概念
Meta分析（meta-analysis）又叫荟萃分析，是系统
➢分析资料
可采用定性或定量的方法进行分析。
➢灵敏性分析
比较两种不同方法对相同试验进行的系统评价是 否会得出不同结果的过程。
目的是了解系统评价的结果是否稳定可靠。
-
16
系统评价（systematic review）
➢失安全数
如结果有统计学意义时，为排除发表偏倚的可能， 需要多少个阴性试验的结果才能使结论逆转。
Meta-分析最大的优点是通过综合各原始文献的研究结果， 增大了研究的样本量，从而增加了研究结果的把握度，并可
解决各单项研究结果不一致的问题。
-
19
二、 Meta分析的基本步骤
1、提出问题，确定研究目的 2、检索相关文献 3、选择文献并进行严格评价 4、收集数据 5、对每个研究的特点等情况进行汇总描述 6、确定综合分析效应值的种类及统计分析计划 7、描述纳入研究的结果及其特征 8、异质性检验（heterogeneity test） 9、计算合并效应量 10、敏感性分析
以下为二次研究报告质量评价工具
以下为二次研究报告质量评价工具以下为二次研究报告质量评价工具研究报告在科学研究中占据重要地位。
研究报告的质量直接影响到研究成果的可信度和科学价值。
为了客观评价研究报告的质量，提出了一系列的评价工具。
本文将介绍以下几种常用的二次研究报告质量评价工具。
一、AMSTAR（A Measurement Tool to AssessSystematic Reviews）AMSTAR是评价系统性综述质量的评价工具。
它包括11个项目，涵盖了综述的目标、文献搜索和筛选、数据提取和风险评估等方面。
每个项目都有一些具体的评价标准，评价者根据这些标准对综述进行评价。
AMSTAR评价工具简单实用，适用于评价发表在期刊上的系统性综述的质量。
二、PRISMA（Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses）PRISMA是系统性综述和荟萃分析的报告指南。
该指南涵盖了开展系统性综述和荟萃分析的全部流程，包括文献搜索、筛选、数据提取和结果呈现等。
PRISMA评价工具从报告的角度出发，要求综述报告按照一定的格式展示研究的目的、方法、结果和结论等内容。
PRISMA评价工具可以帮助评价者判断综述报告是否按照规范进行撰写。
三、ROBIS（Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews）ROBIS是用于评价系统性综述风险偏倚的评价工具。
ROBIS从设计、进行和报告三个阶段评估了综述的风险偏倚。
评价者根据一系列问题来评估综述在每个阶段的偏倚风险程度。
ROBIS评价工具可以帮助评价者了解综述报告的可信程度，判断是否存在风险偏倚。
四、COSMIN（Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments）COSMIN是用于评价测量工具质量的评价工具。
第五章系统评价2019-精品
A1
市场占
3
有率
A2
R14
1801.636 110
A3
A1
投资费
4
用
A2
R24
500.278 180
A3
A1
产品外
5
观
A2
4
R15 3 1.333
A3
2020/4/1
11
0.857 1.400
— 1.636 0.278
— 1.333 0.750
—
1.200 1.400 1.000 0.455 0.278 1.000 1.000 0.750 1.000
⑤产品外观 – 如何确定各指标的权重？
2020/4/1
4
第一节 关联矩阵法(原理性方法)
对于Wj的确定有两种基本方法
（一）逐对比较法：
评价指
得分序号
累计
标
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 得分
权重
期望利润 1 1 1 1
（X1）
产品成品 0
111
率（X2）
0.4
3
0.3
市场占有
0
0
01
系统工程
（Systems Engineering SE）
—现代管理的系统思维与系统分析方法
进入
2020/4/1
0
第五章 系统评价
第一节 关联矩阵法 第二节 PATTERN (关联树)法 第三节 AHP法的基本原理及步骤 第四节 模糊评价法
2020/4/1
1
第一节 关联矩阵法(原理性方法)
j
第二个替代方案A2关于x1指标的价值评定量
3
第一节 关联矩阵法(原理性方法)
“prisma”相关文件合集
“prisma”相关文件合集目录一、PCB行业数据报告 Prismask机构付费英文研报Prismark Printed Circuit Report Q1二、网状Meta分析优先报告条目PRISMA扩展声明解读三、PRISMA系列报告规范简介四、系统评价报告规范：PRISMA五、PCB行业数据报告 Prismask机构付费英文研报Prismark Printed Circuit Report Q4六、系统综述与网状Meta分析的PRISMA扩展声明PCB行业数据报告 Prismask机构付费英文研报PrismarkPrinted Circuit Report Q1标题：PCB行业数据报告 Prismask机构付费英文研报 Prismark Printed Circuit Report Q1Prismark公司的PCB行业数据报告Q1版发布了，该报告提供了全球PCB行业的最新动态和趋势。
本文将对该报告进行深入分析，以帮助读者更好地了解PCB行业的发展情况。
根据Prismark公司的报告，全球PCB市场在2023年第一季度持续增长，但增速较上一季度有所放缓。
这主要是由于全球经济形势的不稳定以及电子消费品市场需求的疲软。
然而，即使在这样的环境下，PCB 行业依然保持了稳健的增长态势。
美洲市场：美洲市场的PCB产值在2023年第一季度实现了同比增长，主要得益于美国和巴西市场的增长。
然而，墨西哥市场的表现却不尽如人意，产值出现了下滑。
欧洲市场：欧洲市场的PCB产值在同期也实现了增长，其中德国、英国和法国是主要的增长市场。
然而，俄罗斯市场的表现却因乌克兰战争的影响而下滑。
亚太市场：亚太市场依然是全球PCB产值最大的区域，占全球总产值的近一半。
其中，中国市场的增长最为迅猛，但印度市场的增长速度却相对较慢。
根据报告，多层板市场依然是最大的PCB市场，但增速较慢。
而柔性板市场的增速则相对较快，主要得益于智能手机和可穿戴设备的市场需求增长。
Prisma P 功能系统设计手册
进线单元: MT08~25/H 柜体选择: Prisma P 柜深 = 800
7
2500A 主母线 (扁平排) 放置在 800mm 深的 Prisma P 柜中，由 MT25H1 断路器 (下垂直端子) 通过水平转接母线装置配出。 Linergy 母线用作配电母线安装在柜内共用垂直母线通道内。
7
3200A 主母线 (扁平排) 放置在 1000mm 深度 Prisma P 柜的前部，由 MT32H 断路器 (下垂直端子) 通过水平转接母线装置配出。 Linergy 母排作为配电母线安装在柜内共用垂直母线通道内。
9
概述
4000A 及以下
配电柜一般布置
后连接上进线 (电缆)
主母线安装 主母线安装在进线柜，由支架固定，占去 4 个模数 垂直母线安装 垂直母线安装在侧面通道。 1600 A 及以下: 采用 Linergy800, 1000,1250,1600 2000A: 采用带孔扁平铜排，截面积 80x5 Prisma P4000 的 IP 等级最高 IP31 上部连接 (电缆) 进线单元: MT40H 柜体选择: Prisma P 深度: 600/1000
பைடு நூலகம்
Prisma 系列配电柜安装使用条件
■ 户内安装，安装场地海拔不超过 2000m ■ 周围空气温度不超过 +40℃，不低于 -5℃，24 小时周围空气温度不超过 +35℃ ■ 周围环境湿度相对在 40℃时为 50%，在较低温度时，允许有较高的相对湿度 ■ 污染等级 3 ■ 安装时，地面平整度应小于 2mm/ 米
该系统能够实现各种型号的 630A 以下低压配电柜装置，无论是商业建筑，工业还是民 用住宅区都可使用。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
作者应该告诉读者达成一致信度水平，关于选择的仲裁时如何需求的， 为解决分歧做出努力（如联系原始研究的作者等）
标题
条目1：标题——明确本研究报告是系统评 价还是Meta分析，还是两者兼有。
作者应该在标题中说明报告的是“系统评价” 或“Meta分析”。
建议作者使用信息标题，它可使读者容易理解 关键信息。理想的是，标题能反映PICOS方法 （受试者、干预措施、对照干预措施、结局指 标、研究设计）。
摘要
集的起始日期 研究选择：使用什么纳入标准来选择研究 数据提取方法：描述数据提取的评价方法和合并或总结数据的方法。 数据综合部分：描述主要结果在系统评价的哪个地方报告，如果包括
Meta分析，作者应该提供最重要结局指标的可信区间。 局限性：作者可能会描述纳入研究的最重要弱点及评价过程的局限性 结论：作者应该提供清晰和均衡的结论、与综述目的和结果紧密相连的
对于每个检索数据库，最低程度上，作者应该报告检索的 数据库、平台或提供者（比如：Ovid, Dialog, PubMed） 及每个数据库检索起始日期。
作者还应该报告由谁来检索的。
作者应该报告确定研究辅助方法的使用，如手工检索期刊， 检查参考文献列表，检索试验注册或注册机构网站，联系 厂家或联系作者。
合格标准应该分为以下两部分：研究特征和报告特征，两 者均需要报告；
合格标准应该报告PICOS：P：研究人群；I：干预措施； C：对照措施；O：结局指标；S：研究设计的类型 ；此外 报告最短随访时间；
报告研究排除标准； 报告出版语种、出版状态（包括未发表的材料和摘要）及
出版的年限
方法
条目7：信息来源——针对每次检索及最终检索的结果描 述所有文献信息的来源（如：资料库文献，与研究作者联 系获取相应的文献）
如果不同检索用于一个广泛问题的不同部分（比如：与有效性 和危害性的问题），我们建议作者提供适合每部分目的至少其 中的一个检索策略的例子。我们也鼓励作者去说明检索策略是 否被同行所评价作为系统评价的一部分。
作者应该直截了当的描述他们检索限制条件。
除了用来确定或排除报告的关键词外，他们应该报告任何与检 索有关的其他限制，比如限制语种和限制日期。
作者还应该报告从研究者或赞助者获取任何缺失的信息 （如研究方法或研究结果）。
方法
条目8：检索——至少说明一个主要数据库的资料 检索方法，包含所有检索策略的使用，以便以检 索方法可以重现。
我们建议作者至少报告一个主要数据库的全部电子检索策略。
作为一种可供选择的方法说明所有数据库的检索策略，作者可 以指明如何考虑检索其他可检索的数据库，作为不同数据库的 索引的术语。
方法
条目9 研究选择——说明纳入研究被选择的过程 （包括初筛，合格性鉴定及纳入系统评价步骤， 据实还包括纳入Meta分析的过程）
对于系统评价研究选择没有一个标准化过程。作者通常从大量的确定检 索记录开始，从而根据合格标准排除记录。我们建议作者报告怎么初筛 这些检索记录（典型的标题或摘要），如果任何类型的记录（比如读者 来信）被排除，通常它是如何去评价已发表的全文。我们还建议使用 PRISMA流程图去总结研究选择过程（见条目17，框3）。
条目2 结构式摘要——提供结构式的摘要 包括：背景、目的、资料来源、纳入研究 标准、研究对象和干预措施、研究评价和 综合方法、结论、局限性、结论和主要发 现、系统评价的资助、系统评价的注册号。
摘要
背景：连接上下文并解释该系统评价问题的重要性 目的：使用PICOS来阐述评论的主要目的 资料来源：总结所检索的任何语言或限定出版类型的资料，以及资料收
PRISMA 说明与详述
•PRISMA声明（系统评价和荟萃分析优先报告的条 目）由27条目及1个流程图（4个阶段）组成的。清 单包含了对一个系统评价透明报告的必要的条目。 在这份说明与详述的文献中，解释了每个清单条目 的含义。对于每个条目，包含了一个良好报告的例 子，如有可能，引用相关实证研究和方法的文献。 PRISMA声明是提高系统评价和荟萃分析报告的有 用的资源。
前言
条目4：目的——通过对研究对象、干预措施、对照 措施、结局指标和研究设计5个方面为导向的问题提 出所需要解决的清晰明确的研究问题
PICOS的原理
1）Pபைடு நூலகம்所需解决的患者或疾病； 2）I:干预措施或兴趣的暴露； 3）C: 对照干预措施； 4）O：主要的结局指标或终点兴趣； 5）S：选择研究设计
在研究期间，作者可能会修改方案，但应该详细描述修改的 方案及其理由。
系统评价的注册：用方案和注册数字
方法
条目6：合格标准——将具体的研究特征（比如PICOS， 随访的期限）和报告特征（比如年限，语言，出版情况） 作为纳入研究的标准，并给出合理的说明 。
作者应该明确指出合格标准，仔细定义合格标准告知综述 各个阶段的评价方法；
结论 资金支持 注册
前言
条目3：理论基础——介绍当前已知的研究理 论基础
作者应该告诉读者他们报告是新的系统评价还是对 已存在系统评价的更新。如果是更新的系统评价， 应该阐述更新的理由，包括较前版本已经增加的新 证据。
对读者来说，一个典型的承接上下文的背景或引言 可能包含以下内容：第一，作者可能会要从不同角 度来明确综述问题的重要性（比如：公共卫生，单 独病人，或卫生政策）；第二，作者可能会简略的 提及当前的状态及其局限性。第三，作者可能会通 过清楚地阐述综述的目的来刺激读者胃口。
方法
条目5 方案和注册——如果已有研究方案则说明方案 内容并给出可获得该方案的途径（如网址），并且提 供现有已注册的研究信息，包括注册号。
研究方案很重要，因为他预先设定了系统评价的目的和方法。 对于单个病人层面资料的Meta分析来说，作者应该描述方 案是否是明确设计的以及参与合作者是否、什么时候、怎么 认可的。