期刊文献+

对系统综述讨论与结论部分报告的探讨 被引量:1

Reporting parts of discussion and conclusion in systematic reviews
原文传递
导出
摘要 根据Cochrane系统综述手册以及系统综述和荟萃分析优先报告条目(PRISMA声明)2个系统综述的国际报告规范,介绍系统综述在讨论和结论部分应报告的内容,包括对证据主要结果的概括、对结果的解释、对证据质量的评价、对证据偏倚或局限性的探讨、与类似研究或系统综述的比较以及对未来临床实践和未来科研的意义几个部分。分析目前国内发表的中医药系统综述在讨论与结论部分存在的问题,包括讨论和结论的内容过于简单、讨论的内容与结果重复、讨论的内容与主题无关、结论用词不谨慎等。针对当前存在的问题以及中医药系统综述的特点,指出系统综述在下结论时应该客观、慎重,并结合干预措施的特征和原始研究的质量,为临床实践和未来研究提出建议。 According to two international reporting standards for systematic reviews in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and PRISMA statemant,the paper introduced the content that should be reported in the parts of discussion and conclusion in systematic reviews,including summary and interpretation of main results,evaluation of the quality of evidence,study of bias and limitation of evidence,comparison with similar studies or systematic reviews,and implication for future clinical practice and research.The authors analyzed the current problems in the parts of discussion and conclusion in TCM systematic reviews published domestically,involving simple content,repeated content and results,off-topic content in discussion and careless words in conclusion.For the common problems and characteristics existing in TCM systematic reviews,the conclusion should be made objectively and cautiously considering the features of interventions and quality of original studies.Some suggestions were provided for clinical practice and further research in the paper.
出处 《北京中医药大学学报(中医临床版)》 2012年第5期30-33,共4页 Journal of Beijing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
基金 北京中医药大学创新团队项目资助(No.2011-CXTD-09)
关键词 系统综述 Cochrane系统综述手册 PRISMA声明 报告规范 systematic reviews Cochrane Handbook PRISMA statemant reporting standard
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献45

  • 1Oxman AD,Cook DJ,Guyatt GH.Users' guides to the medical literature.Ⅵ.How to use an overview.Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.JAMA.1994;272(17):1367-1371.
  • 2Swingler GH,Volmink J,Ioannidis JP.Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease:Database analysis.BMJ.2003.327(7423):1083-1084.
  • 3Canadian Institutes of Health Research.Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist(12/2006)[2009-05-19].http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf.
  • 4Young C,Horton R.Putting clinical trials into context.Lancet.2005;366(9480):107-108.
  • 5Mulrow CD.The medical review article:state of the science.Ann Intern Med.1987;106(3):485-488.
  • 6Sacks HS,Berrier J,Reitman D,Ancona-Berk VA,Chalmers TC.Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.New Engl J Med.1987;316(8):450-455.
  • 7Sacks HS,Reitman D,Pagano D,Kupelnick B.Meta-analysis:an update.Mt Sinai J Med.1996;63(3-4):216-224.
  • 8Moher D,Cook DJ,Eastwood S,Olkin I,Rennie D,Stroup DF.Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials:The QUOROM statement.Lancet.1994;354(9193):1896-1900.
  • 9Green S,Higgins J.Glossary.Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5.The Cochrane Collaboration[2009-05-19].http://www.cochrane.org/resources/glossary.htm.
  • 10Strech D,Tilburt J.Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence.J Clin Epidemiol.2008;61(6):521-524.

共引文献216

同被引文献8

引证文献1

二级引证文献20

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部