PROSPERO平台注册诊断性试验系统评价/Meta分析的基本特征及合作情况分析
|
摘要
目的评价PROSPERO平台注册诊断性试验系统评价/Meta分析的基本特征及合作情况,为研究人员注册和开展诊断性试验系统评价/Meta分析提供借鉴。方法计算机检索PROSPERO注册平台,搜集注册的诊断性试验系统评价/Meta分析,检索时限截至2017年11月12日。由2名研究员独立筛选文献、提取资料并采用STATA 13.0制作森林图,采用BICOMS(书目信息共现分析系统)分析软件对国家、作者和单位等信息进行抽取并生成共现矩阵。采用Ucinet 6.0软件中NetDraw功能绘制国家、作者和作者单位合作社会网络图。结果 PROSPERO平台共注册了240个诊断性试验系统评价/Meta分析,其在作者(1050个)、机构(360个)和国家(34个)分布方面均不平衡。诊断性试验系统评价/Meta分析涉及21个系统疾病,最多的疾病为肿瘤(52个,22%);组织活检是使用最多的金标准,影像学诊断是使用最多的诊断试验。检索使用频率最高的外文数据库为PubMed、EMbase、The Cochrane Library,使用频率最高的中文数据库为CNKI、WanFang Data和CBM。105个诊断性试验系统评价/Meta分析(43.8%)报道了检索策略,159个(66.3%)使用QUADAS-2评价纳入研究质量,105个(43.8%)报告了基金资助情况。结论 PROSPERO平台注册诊断性试验系统评价/Meta分析的数量相对较少,作者、机构和国家间存在一定的联系,但对诊断性试验系统评价/Meta分析的效应指标和统计方法仍描述不够。
Objectives To analyze the cooperation and basic characteristics on systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) in diagnostic test registered in PROSPERO platform, in order to provide reference for registering and preparing the SRs/MAs on diagnostic test. Methods We searched PROSPERO platform from inception to November 12~(th), 2017, to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic test. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The forest figure was prepared by STATA 13.0 software. The figure of network of authors, organizations and countries were prepared by NetDraw software. Results A total of 240 SRs/MAs in diagnostic test were included. There was a serious imbalance in the quantity of the distribution of authors(1050), organizations(360) and countries(34). These SRs/MAs in diagnostic test were related to 21 systematic diseases, with cancer ranking the first(52,22%). Tissue biopsy was the most used gold standard, and imaging diagnosis was the most used diagnostic test.The most commonly retrieved English databases were PubMed, EMbase The Cochrane Library, while the Chinese databases were CNKI, WanFang Data and CBM. The search strategy were reported in 105(43.8%) SRs/MAs on diagnostic test. The QUADAS-2 was used to assess the quality of included studies in 159(66.3%) SRs/MAs in diagnostic test, and 105(43.8%) SRs/MAs were supported by funding. Conclusions The absolute quantity of SRs/MAs in diagnostic test is still minimal. There are relationships among different authors, organizations and countries. The researcher should focus on the effective sizes and statistical methods in future.
Objectives To analyze the cooperation and basic characteristics on systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) in diagnostic test registered in PROSPERO platform, in order to provide reference for registering and preparing the SRs/MAs on diagnostic test. Methods We searched PROSPERO platform from inception to November 12~(th), 2017, to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic test. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The forest figure was prepared by STATA 13.0 software. The figure of network of authors, organizations and countries were prepared by NetDraw software. Results A total of 240 SRs/MAs in diagnostic test were included. There was a serious imbalance in the quantity of the distribution of authors(1050), organizations(360) and countries(34). These SRs/MAs in diagnostic test were related to 21 systematic diseases, with cancer ranking the first(52,22%). Tissue biopsy was the most used gold standard, and imaging diagnosis was the most used diagnostic test.The most commonly retrieved English databases were PubMed, EMbase The Cochrane Library, while the Chinese databases were CNKI, WanFang Data and CBM. The search strategy were reported in 105(43.8%) SRs/MAs on diagnostic test. The QUADAS-2 was used to assess the quality of included studies in 159(66.3%) SRs/MAs in diagnostic test, and 105(43.8%) SRs/MAs were supported by funding. Conclusions The absolute quantity of SRs/MAs in diagnostic test is still minimal. There are relationships among different authors, organizations and countries. The researcher should focus on the effective sizes and statistical methods in future.
引文
1 Chien PF, Khan KS, Siassakos D. Registration of systematic reviews:PROSPERO. BJOG, 2012, 119(8):903-905.
2 Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO? J Orthod, 2017, 44(4):249-255.
3周建国,吕水萍,张钰,等.中国学者在PROSPERO平台注册系统评价/Meta分析的现状调查.中国循证医学杂志,2016,16(4):466-470.
4兰颖,兰蕾,曾芳,等.PROSPERO系统评价注册平台针灸资源现状分析.中国针灸,2015, 35(2):173-175.
5 Tricco AC, Cogo E, Page MJ, et al. A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome:a PROSPERO register study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 79:46-54.
6 Ruano J, Gomez-Garcia F, Gay-Mimbrera J, et al. Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews:a metaepidemiological study protocol. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1):43.
7 Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO:30, 000 records and counting. Syst Rev,2018,7(1):32.
8 Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews(PROSPERO)of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality. J Clin Epidemiol, 2018, 100:103-110.
9 Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, et al. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open,2017,7(2):e012545.
10田金徽,陈杰峰,主编.诊断试验系统评价/Meta分析指导手册.北京:中国医药科技出版社,2015.
11 Willis BH, Quigley M. The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research:a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2011,11:163.
12 Liu D, Jin J, Tian J, et al.Quality assessment and factor analysis ofsystematic reviews and meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis. PLoS One, 2015, 10(4):e0120911.
13 Meads CA, Davenport CF. Quality assessment of diagnostic beforeafter studies:development of methodology in the context of a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2009, 9:3.
14 Ge L, Wang JC, Li JL, et al. The assessment of the quality of reporting of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in diagnostic tests published by authors in China. PLoS One, 2014, 9(1):e85908.
15吴景玲,潘蓓,葛龙,等.ANOVA模型实现贝叶斯方法的诊断试验准确性网状Meta分析.中国循证医学杂志,2017, 17(9):1111-1116.
16吴景玲,葛龙,张俊华,等.多个诊断性试验准确性的比较:网状Meta分析方法介绍.中国循证医学杂志,2017,17(8):987-992.
17邵鸿生,孙月,马文娟,等.不同类型和磁场强度心脏磁共振成像诊断冠状动脉疾病准确性的Meta分析.中国循证医学杂志,2018,18(04):315-325.
18陈耀龙,姚亮,杜亮,等.GRADE在诊断准确性试验系统评价中应用的原理、方法、挑战及发展趋势.中国循证医学杂志,2014,14(11):1402-1406.
19姚亮,陈耀龙,杜亮,等.GRADE在诊断准确性试验系统评价中应用的实例解析.中国循证医学杂志,2014,14(11):1407-1412.
20张永刚,杨乐天,杨鑫,等.诊断准确性试验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范(PRISMA-DTA)的解读.中国循证医学杂志,2018,18(9):1007-1016.
21王梦书,李乐,张红霞,等.影像诊断系统评价被临床实践指南引用情况调查.中国循证医学杂志,2016,16(3):341-347.
2 Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO? J Orthod, 2017, 44(4):249-255.
3周建国,吕水萍,张钰,等.中国学者在PROSPERO平台注册系统评价/Meta分析的现状调查.中国循证医学杂志,2016,16(4):466-470.
4兰颖,兰蕾,曾芳,等.PROSPERO系统评价注册平台针灸资源现状分析.中国针灸,2015, 35(2):173-175.
5 Tricco AC, Cogo E, Page MJ, et al. A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome:a PROSPERO register study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 79:46-54.
6 Ruano J, Gomez-Garcia F, Gay-Mimbrera J, et al. Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews:a metaepidemiological study protocol. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1):43.
7 Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO:30, 000 records and counting. Syst Rev,2018,7(1):32.
8 Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews(PROSPERO)of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality. J Clin Epidemiol, 2018, 100:103-110.
9 Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, et al. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open,2017,7(2):e012545.
10田金徽,陈杰峰,主编.诊断试验系统评价/Meta分析指导手册.北京:中国医药科技出版社,2015.
11 Willis BH, Quigley M. The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research:a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2011,11:163.
12 Liu D, Jin J, Tian J, et al.Quality assessment and factor analysis ofsystematic reviews and meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis. PLoS One, 2015, 10(4):e0120911.
13 Meads CA, Davenport CF. Quality assessment of diagnostic beforeafter studies:development of methodology in the context of a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2009, 9:3.
14 Ge L, Wang JC, Li JL, et al. The assessment of the quality of reporting of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in diagnostic tests published by authors in China. PLoS One, 2014, 9(1):e85908.
15吴景玲,潘蓓,葛龙,等.ANOVA模型实现贝叶斯方法的诊断试验准确性网状Meta分析.中国循证医学杂志,2017, 17(9):1111-1116.
16吴景玲,葛龙,张俊华,等.多个诊断性试验准确性的比较:网状Meta分析方法介绍.中国循证医学杂志,2017,17(8):987-992.
17邵鸿生,孙月,马文娟,等.不同类型和磁场强度心脏磁共振成像诊断冠状动脉疾病准确性的Meta分析.中国循证医学杂志,2018,18(04):315-325.
18陈耀龙,姚亮,杜亮,等.GRADE在诊断准确性试验系统评价中应用的原理、方法、挑战及发展趋势.中国循证医学杂志,2014,14(11):1402-1406.
19姚亮,陈耀龙,杜亮,等.GRADE在诊断准确性试验系统评价中应用的实例解析.中国循证医学杂志,2014,14(11):1407-1412.
20张永刚,杨乐天,杨鑫,等.诊断准确性试验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范(PRISMA-DTA)的解读.中国循证医学杂志,2018,18(9):1007-1016.
21王梦书,李乐,张红霞,等.影像诊断系统评价被临床实践指南引用情况调查.中国循证医学杂志,2016,16(3):341-347.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |