摘要
目的评价2014~2016年国内采用Bland-Altman方法进行一致性评价的报告质量。方法计算机检索WanFang Data、VIP和CNKI数据库,搜集2014~2016年国内采用Bland-Altman方法进行一致性评价的文献。由2位研究者筛选文献和提取资料后,采用SPSS 22.0软件进行统计分析。结果共纳入文献376篇。纳入研究的Bland-Altman方法在应用条件、评价指标、图示刻画等诸多方面报告均不规范。研究中事先设定临床可接受的一致性界值的文献仅占11.4%;正确采用95%一致限(LoA)的95%可信区间(CI)与事先设定的临床可接受界值进行比较的仅有1篇(0.3%);图示刻画中两测量结果差值线、差值95%CI线、差值95%Lo A线以及差值95%Lo A的95%CI线提供率分别为95.9%、9.5%、94.6%和4.4%。结论国内研究对Bland-Altman方法应用不佳,存在报告不规范的问题。应加强介绍Bland-Altman方法学,提高其报告质量。
Objectives To evaluate the reporting quality of Bland-Altman method consistency evaluation in China from 2014 to 2016. Methods WanFang Data, VIP and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect literature about the application of Bland-Altman method from 2014 to 2016 in China. Two reviewers screened literature, extracted data, and the data were then statistically analyzed by SPSS 22.0 software. Results A total of 376 articles were included. The published articles on Bland-Altman method had major flaws （not conforming to reporting standards） in the application conditions, evaluation indexes, graphic depiction and so on. Merely 11.4% of the literature set the clinically acceptable consensus values in the pre-period studies. Merely one literature （0.3%） correctly compared the 95%CI of 95%LoA with the clinically acceptable threshold which had been set previously. The offer rates of the differences between the two measurements and the 95%CI, 95%LoA and 95%CI of 95%LoA in the figure were 95.9%, 9.5%, 94.6% and 4.4%, respectively. Conclusions The reporting quality of Bland-Airman method consistency evaluation in China is of low quality, specifically not conforming to reporting standards. We should strengthen the introduction of Bland-Altman methodology to improve the reporting quality.
出处
《中国循证医学杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2018年第1期67-73,共7页
Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine
基金
国家自然科学基金(编号:81473066)
