| 刘贤亮,关风光,谭景予.国内护理健康教育系统评价/Meta分析的方法学和报告质量评价[J].井冈山大学自然版,2011,(6):118-123,136 |
| 国内护理健康教育系统评价/Meta分析的方法学和报告质量评价 |
| METHODOLOGY AND REPORTING QUALITY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW/META-ANALYSIS OF NURSING HEALTH EDUCATION IN CHINA |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 护理 健康教育 系统评价/Meta分析 评价 |
| 英文关键词: nursing health education systematic review/meta-analysis assessment |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 2559 |
| 全文下载次数: 0 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的评价国内护理健康教育系统评价/Meta分析方法学和报告质量。方法电子检索万方数据资源系统、中国知网（CNKI）、中文科技期刊数据库（VIP）、中文生物医学期刊数据库（CMCC）、中国中医药数据库等,辅助手工检索近20种国内期刊,两位评估者独立提取数据并录入NoteExpress2建立的信息采集表进行分析。选用OQAQ量表和PRISMA声明分别进行方法学和报告质量评价。结果共纳入14篇合格文献,其中2篇系统评价,12篇Meta分析,在方法学及报告质量上都存在不同程度问题,主要在文献检索、纳入排除标准、真实性评价、数据合并及基金等方面。结论能够达到国际标准的高质量护理健康教育系统评价/Meta分析很少,在接纳和运用其结果时应谨慎。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective:To assess the methodology and reporting quality of systematic review or meta-analysis of Nursing Health Education in China.Methods:A comprehensive search of the literature in Wanfang Database、CNKI、VIP、CMCC、TCM Database of China and the regular journals published in china.Two assessment tools were used:(1) OQAQ(the Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire);(2) PRISMA(Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses).Results:14 papers were identified:2 reviews called"systematic reviews"and 12 called"meta-analyses",all the reviews had methodology and reporting flaws that could have influenced the reviews’ validity,the deficiencies were mainly in literature searches,included and excluded criteria,included studies’ quality assessment,data merging and funding.Conclusion:The methodology and reporting quality are poor in both systematic review and meta-analysis of nursing health education published in the regular journals of nursing in china.Therefore,the methodology and reporting quality of each individual systematic review and meta-analysis should be scrutinized before accepting and use its results. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
