摘要
目的对国内发表的中医药系统评价/Meta分析中的异质性问题进行分析,了解异质性的来源、类别及严重程度,探讨中医药系统评价中异质性的正确处理方法。方法计算机检索CBM、CNKI、VIP等中文数据库及手检《中国循证医学杂志》,检索截止时间为2008年。由两位研究者按照纳入与排除标准独立提取资料并对有关异质性的问题进行评价。若遇分歧,讨论解决。结果共纳入115个中医药系统评价/Meta分析,涉及17类疾病,其中以心血管疾病最多(36,31.3%)。有41个(35.65%)中医药系统评价混合纳入了两种或两种以上设计类型的原始研究;有62个(53.91%)系统评价所纳入研究的干预措施不一致,有60个(52.17%)系统评价中的对照措施不一致;另有10个(8.7%)系统评价的异质性处理方法不当。结论中医药系统评价/Meta分析中异质性问题普遍存在,尤以临床异质性最为突出。异质性问题处置不当,会直接影响中医药系统评价的质量。
Objective To analyze the heterogeneity of systematic reviews （SRs）/Meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine （TCM）, and explore strategies for addressing heterogeneity correctly during the process of conducting TCM related to systematic reviews （SRs）.
Methods Both electronic and hand searches were used to identify TCM SRs in CBM, CNKI, VIP database, and Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. Two researchers performed data extracting and heterogeneity evaluation independently.
Results A total of 115 TCM SRs were included, involving 17 types of diseases, among which the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases were the most addressed （n=36, 31.30%）. There were 35.65% （n=41） of SRs which integrated two or more types of studies; interventions of the included studies were inconsistent in 53.91% （n=62） of TCM SRs; control groups of the included studies were completely different in 60 （52.17%） SRs; and 8.7% （n=10） of SRs failed to investigate heterogeneity in the process of synthesis analysis.
Conclusion The heterogeneity is common in TCM related to SRs, and the most addressed is clinical heterogeneity. Addressing heterogeneity incorrectly would downgrade the quality of TCM related to SRs.
出处
《中国循证医学杂志》
CSCD
2010年第4期488-491,共4页
Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine
基金
国家中医药管理局资助项目:中医临床方法学质量研究(2004DEA71040)
关键词
中医药
系统评价
META分析
异质性
Traditional Chinese Medicine
Systematic review
Meta-analysis
Heterogeneity
