对系统评价_Meta分析报告规范的系统评价_尹森林

© 2011中国循证医学杂志编辑部 C JEBM

对系统评价/Meta分析报告规范的系统评价

尹森林1刘雪梅1*何 林2李幼平3

1. 四川大学华西医院华西期刊社（成都 610041）；

2. 四川大学华西医院图书馆（成都 610041）；

3. 四川大学华西医院中国循证医学中心（成都 610041）

摘要 目的全面收集系统评价/Meta分析的报告规范并对其进行评价，为系统评价/Meta分析的规范化发

表及传播提供帮助。方法电子检索Ovid MEDLINE（1996～2010）及EMbase（截至2010年4月），纳入系统评

价/Meta分析报告规范的文献，检索词包括guideline、report、systematic reviews、meta-analyses。通过阅读文题及摘

要，排除无明显相关性的文献（针对具体疾病的系统评价，某一疾病的临床指南，以及仅讨论如何进行系统评价而

未关注如何进行系统评价的报道等），而后进一步阅读全文，从纳入文献中提取如何报告系统评价/Meta分析的

部分，并据其纳入原始研究设计的类型如随机对照试验、观察性研究、诊断性试验进行分类。结果初检获得285

篇文献，最终纳入26篇文献。其中随机对照试验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范有8篇，非随机对照试验（观察

性研究）的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范2篇，诊断性试验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范0篇，动物实验的系统

评价/Meta分析报告规范1篇，针对系统评价/Meta分析的检索策略的报告规范2篇，评估系统评价/Meta分析

质量的5篇，研究报告规范对系统评价/Meta分析质量影响的6篇。有2个指南更新。结论目前系统评价/Meta

分析报告规范数量较多，其中QUOROM及其更新版本PRISMA被众多期刊广泛采纳。报告规范有利于提高系统

评价和Meta分析的报告质量，尚需制定针对具体专业系统评价/Meta分析的报告规范。

关键词系统评价；Meta分析；报告规范

Report Guidelines for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: A Systematic Review

YIN Sen-lin1, LIU Xue-mei1*, HE Lin2, LI You-ping3

1. West China Periodicals Press of West China Hospital, Chengdu 610041, China;

2. Library of West China Hospital, Chengdu 610041, China;

3. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Chengdu 610041, China

Abstract Objective To collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, so as to provide

support for the standardized publish and spread of those guidelines. Methods Such databases as Ovid MEDLINE (1996-

2010) and EMbase (till April, 2010) were searched with the terms of “guideline”, “report”, “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” to collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Th e irrelevant literatures (e.g. system-

atic review of a specifi c disease, clinical guideline for a certain disease, and other literatures focusing on the methodology

of systematic review without mentioning reporting guideline) were excluded by reading the abstracts and titles, and then

the further verifi cation was done aft er the full-texts had been read. Th e contents about how to report a systematic review

or meta-analyses were extracted from the included studies which were classifi ed by its form of the original research (e.g. randomized controlled trial, observational study, diagnostic trial, etc.). Results Primary search ended up with 285 litera-

tures, and 26 literatures of which were included. Among the included literatures about the report guidelines for systematic

reviews and meta-analyses, eight were about RCTs, two about non-RCTs, two about observational study, no literature

about diagnostic trial, one about animal experiment, two about report searching strategy, fi ve about quality assessment, six

about the infl uence on quality, and the other two about the update of guidelines. Conclusion Th e report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considerable in number, among which the QUOROM and its updated version PRISMA are relatively mature and widely applied. Report guidelines are benefi cial to improve the quality of systematic

reviews and meta-analyses, and the report guideline focusing on specifi c fi eld is needs to be formulate.

Key words Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Report guideline

作者简介：尹森林，男（1989年～），四川大学华西临床医学院八年

制博士研究生，以循证医学方法学，神经科学为主要研究方向。

Email: enforest@

*通讯作者，Email: l_xm20@

系统评价应当公开尽可能多的信息以供读者判

断其证据可信度。但由于缺乏报告规范，关键信息

的缺失使得系统评价的潜在价值大打折扣[1]，甚至

• 971 •