研究质量与报告完整性的关联：自 PRISMA 声明发布以来，主要放射学期刊中系统评价和荟萃分析的报告完整性和质量是否发生了变化？
Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement?
机构信息
Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medical Imaging, Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Ave, Room c159, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1Y 4E9.
出版信息
Radiology. 2013 Nov;269(2):413-26. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130273. Epub 2013 Jul 3.
PURPOSE
To evaluate whether completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals has changed since publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement; a secondary objective is to evaluate whether completeness of reporting (ie, PRISMA) is associated with study quality (ie, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews [AMSTAR]).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in major radiology journals between January 2007 and December 2011 were identified by searching MEDLINE with the modified Montori method. Studies were reviewed independently by two investigators and assessed for adherence to the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. The average results were analyzed to assess for change in mean score before and after PRISMA publication and to assess results over time; a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to assess for any association between PRISMA and AMSTAR results.
RESULTS
Included were 130 studies from 11 journals. Average PRISMA and AMSTAR results were 21.8 of 27 and 7.2 of 11, respectively. The average result was higher after publication of PRISMA, and PRISMA-reported items were 22.6 of 27 after publication of PRISMA versus 20.9 of 27 before publication of PRISMA; AMSTAR results were 7.7 of 11 after publication of PRISMA versus 6.7 of 11 before publication of PRISMA. There was a strong positive correlation (r = 0.86) between the PRISMA and AMSTAR results. There was high variability between journals. Radiology had the highest PRISMA reported items (24.7 of 27), and American Journal of Neuroradiology had the lowest (19.6 of 27). Two major areas for improvement include study protocol registration and assessment of risk of bias across studies (ie, publication bias).
CONCLUSION
In major radiology journal studies, there was modest improvement in completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, assessed by PRISMA, which was strongly associated with higher study quality, assessed by AMSTAR.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13130273/-/DC1.
目的
评估主要放射学期刊中系统评价和荟萃分析报告的完整性自 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses（PRISMA）声明发表以来是否发生了变化；次要目标是评估报告的完整性（即 PRISMA）是否与研究质量相关（即，评估系统评价的方法学质量 [AMSTAR]）。
材料与方法
通过使用改良的 Montori 方法在 MEDLINE 中搜索，确定了 2007 年 1 月至 2011 年 12 月期间发表在主要放射学期刊上的系统评价和荟萃分析。两名调查员独立对研究进行了回顾，并评估了对 AMSTAR 和 PRISMA 清单的遵守情况。分析平均结果以评估 PRISMA 发表前后平均分数的变化，并评估随时间的结果；计算 Pearson 相关系数以评估 PRISMA 和 AMSTAR 结果之间的任何关联。
结果
共纳入 11 种期刊的 130 项研究。PRISMA 和 AMSTAR 的平均结果分别为 27 项中的 21.8 项和 11 项中的 7.2 项。PRISMA 发表后平均结果更高，PRISMA 发表后报告的项目为 27 项中的 22.6 项，PRISMA 发表前为 20.9 项；PRISMA 发表后 AMSTAR 的结果为 11 项中的 7.7 项，PRISMA 发表前为 11 项中的 6.7 项。PRISMA 和 AMSTAR 结果之间存在很强的正相关关系（r = 0.86）。期刊之间存在很大的差异。放射学杂志的 PRISMA 报告项目最多（27 项中的 24.7 项），而美国神经放射学杂志的报告项目最少（27 项中的 19.6 项）。有两个主要的改进领域，包括研究方案的注册和评估研究之间的偏倚风险（即发表偏倚）。
结论
在主要放射学期刊的研究中，PRISMA 评估的系统评价和荟萃分析报告的完整性有适度改善，与 AMSTAR 评估的更高研究质量密切相关。
补充材料
http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13130273/-/DC1.
Zotero 插件