meta文献质量评价方法

Meta分析系列之九_Meta分析的质量评价工具Meta分析是一种系统性综述的方法，用于汇总和分析多个独立研究的结果。

在进行Meta分析时，我们需要评价每个独立研究的质量，以确保研究结果的准确性和可靠性。

本文将介绍Meta分析的质量评价工具，帮助读者更好地理解和应用这一方法。

Meta分析的质量评价工具可以分为两类：主观评价和客观评价。

主观评价是指依赖研究者主观判断的质量评价方法，客观评价则是依据特定的评价标准进行的评价方法。

下面我们将逐一介绍这些评价工具。

一、主观评价方法1. 研究设计评价：该评价方法主要关注研究设计的合理性和科学性。

研究设计评价包括随机选择和分组、盲法、对照组选择等方面的评价。

研究者应根据这些评价标准，判断独立研究的设计质量。

2. 样本选择评价：样本选择评价主要关注样本的选择是否具有代表性和遗漏的风险。

研究者需要评估研究中样本选择的流程和指标，以确保样本的代表性和可信度。

3. 数据收集和分析评价：该评价方法主要关注研究数据的收集和分析过程。

研究者需要评估数据收集的方法是否科学和准确，数据分析的过程是否合理和可靠。

4. 结果报告评价：这是评价独立研究质量的重要方面。

研究者需要评估结果报告的全面性和准确性，以便确定研究结果的可靠性和有效性。

二、客观评价方法1. Jadad量表：Jadad量表是评估随机对照试验质量的一种常用工具。

该量表包括随机化、盲法和退出情况三个方面的评估指标，每个指标按照质量评分制度进行评分。

2. Newcastle-Ottawa量表：Newcastle-Ottawa量表是一种评估非随机对照试验和队列研究质量的工具。

该量表包括选择比较组、比较组的选择、暴露因素和结果的评估指标等内容。

3. Cochrane Collaboration工具：Cochrane Collaboration提供了一套用于评估系统评价和Meta分析质量的工具。

这些工具包括清晰的评估指标和评估标准，研究者可以根据这些指标和标准进行客观评估。

meta分析的基本流程及质量评价下载温馨提示:该文档是我店铺精心编制而成，希望大家下载以后，能够帮助大家解决实际的问题。

文档下载后可定制随意修改，请根据实际需要进行相应的调整和使用，谢谢!并且，本店铺为大家提供各种各样类型的实用资料，如教育随笔、日记赏析、句子摘抄、古诗大全、经典美文、话题作文、工作总结、词语解析、文案摘录、其他资料等等，如想了解不同资料格式和写法，敬请关注!Download tips: This document is carefully compiled by theeditor. I hope that after you download them,they can help yousolve practical problems. The document can be customized andmodified after downloading,please adjust and use it according toactual needs, thank you!In addition, our shop provides you with various types ofpractical materials,such as educational essays, diaryappreciation,sentence excerpts,ancient poems,classic articles,topic composition,work summary,word parsing,copy excerpts,other materials and so on,want to know different data formats andwriting methods,please pay attention!一、确定研究问题和选择研究类型1.1 确定研究问题：在开始meta分析前，需要明确研究问题或研究假设。

AMSTAR ChecklistArticle Name:1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?For Yes: Optional (recommended)PopulationTimeframe for follow upYesNo InterventionComparator groupOutcome2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?For Partial Yes:The authors state that they had awritten protocol or guide thatincluded ALL the following:For Yes:As for partial yes, plus the protocolshould be registered and should alsohave specified:review question(s)a meta-analysis/synthesisplan, if appropriate, andYesPartialYesNoa search strategy a plan for investigating causesof heterogeneityinclusion/exclusion criteria a plan for investigating causesof heterogeneitya risk of bias assessment3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?For Yes, the review should satisfy ONE of the following:Explanation for including only RCTs YesOR Explanation for including only NRSINoOR Explanation for including both RCTs and NRSI4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? For Partial Yes (all the following): For Yes, should also have (all the following):searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question) searched the reference lists / bibliographies of included studies YesPartialYesNoprovided key word and/or search strategy searched trial/study registriesjustified publication restrictions (e.g. language) included/consulted content experts in the fieldwhere relevant, searched for grey literatureconducted search within 24 months of completion of the review5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? For Yes, either ONE of the following:at least two reviewers independently agreed on selection of eligible studies and achieved consensus on which studies to includeYesNoOR two reviewers selected a sample of eligible studies and achieved good agreement (at least 80 percent), with the remainder selected by one reviewer.6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? For Yes, either ONE of the following:at least two reviewers achieved consensus on which data to extract from included studiesYesNoOR two reviewers extracted data from a sample of eligible studiesand achieved good agreement (at least 80 percent), with the remainder extracted by one reviewer.7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? For Partial Yes:For Yes, must also have:provided a list of all potentially relevant studies that were read in full-text form butexcluded from the reviewJustified the exclusion from thereview of each potentially relevant studyYes Partial Yes No8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?For Partial Yes (ALL thefollowing): For Yes, should also have ALL the following:described populations described populationin detail YesPartial YesNodescribed interventionsdescribed intervention in detail (including doses where relevant)described comparatorsdescribed comparatorin detail(including doses where relevant)described outcomesdescribed study’s setting described research designstimeframe for follow-up9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? RCTsFor Partial Yes, must have assessed RoB fromFor Yes, must also have assessed RoB from:unconcealed allocation, andallocation sequence that wasnot truly random, andYesPartial YesNolack of blinding of patients and assessors when assessing selection of the reported result from among multipleoutcomes (unnecessary for objective outcomes such as all-cause mortality) measurements or analyses of aspecified outcome Includes only NRSI NRSIFor Partial Yes, must have assessed RoB:For Yes, must also have assessed RoB:from confounding, andmethods used to ascertainexposures and outcomes, and YesPartial YesNoIncludesonly RCTsfrom selection biasselection of the reported result from among multiple measurements or analyses of a specified outcome10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? For YesMust have reported on the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. Note: Reporting that the reviewers looked for this information but it was not reported by study authors also qualifiesYes No11. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?RCTs For Yes:The authors justified combining the data in a meta-analysis YesNo Nometa-analysis conducted AND they used an appropriate weighted technique to combine study results and adjusted for heterogeneity if present.AND investigated the causes of any heterogeneity For NRSI For Yes:The authors justified combining the data in a meta-analysisYes NoNometa-analysisconducted AND they used an appropriate weighted technique to combine study results, adjusting for heterogeneity if presentAND they statistically combinedeffect estimates from NRSI that were adjusted for confounding, rather than combining raw data, or justified combining raw data when adjusted effect estimates were not available AND they reported separate summary estimates for RCTs and NRSI separately when both were included in the review12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assessthe potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?For Yes:included only low risk of bias RCTsYesNoNo meta-analysis conductedOR, if the pooled estimate was based on RCTs and/or NRSI at variableRoB, the authors performed analyses to investigate possible impact of RoBon summary estimates of effect.13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individualstudies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review?For Yes:included only low risk of bias RCTsYes NoOR, if RCTs with moderate or high RoB, or NRSI were included the review provided a discussion of the likely impact of RoB on the results14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?For Yes:There was no significant heterogeneity in the resultsYes NoOR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed aninvestigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? For Yes:performed graphical or statistical tests for publication bias anddiscussed the likelihood and magnitude of impact of publication biasYes No Nometa-analysis conducted16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? For Yes:The authors reported no competing interests ORYesNoThe authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interestTo cite this tool: Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, Henry DA. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008.。

meta文献质量评价方法文献质量评价是评估一篇文献在学术研究中的可靠性和有效性的过程。

在进行文献质量评价时，可以从多个角度进行考量和评估。

首先，一个常用的方法是考虑文献的来源和出版物的声誉。

评价者可以考虑文献发表的期刊、出版社或者网站的声誉和影响力。

例如，是否是由知名的学术期刊或出版社发表的，是否经过同行评议等。

这些因素可以帮助评价者初步判断文献的质量。

其次，评价者可以考虑文献的方法论和研究设计。

这包括文献中所使用的研究方法、数据收集和分析方法等。

评价者需要考察这些方法是否科学、可靠，并且是否符合学术标准。

例如，是否采用了随机对照试验、受试者盲法等科学研究设计，以及数据分析是否符合统计学原理等。

此外，评价者还可以考虑文献的引用情况和影响因子。

通过检查文献被引用的次数和被其他学者引用的情况，可以初步了解文献在学术界的影响力和重要性。

同时，也可以考虑文献所发表的期刊的影响因子，这也是评价期刊和文献质量的重要指标之一。

另外，评价者还可以考虑文献的适用性和实用性。

这包括文献对于研究课题的相关性、新颖性以及对于解决实际问题的指导意义。

评价者可以考虑文献的观点是否清晰、论据是否充分，并且是否对相关领域的研究和实践有所贡献。

最后，还可以考虑对文献进行综合评价，综合考虑以上多个方面的因素，来评价文献的质量。

需要强调的是，文献质量评价是一个综合性的过程，需要全面、客观地考量文献的各个方面，避免片面性的评价。

总的来说，文献质量评价方法可以从文献的来源和声誉、方法论和研究设计、引用情况和影响因子、适用性和实用性等多个角度进行综合评估，以确保对文献质量的全面、客观评价。

呕血整理，meta分析的SCI写作模板—Quality assessment我们制作Meta分析的最终目的是为了使用，但因作者的水平和纳入文献的质量可能差距较大，因此质量也参差不齐。

因此，使用Meta分析前一般是需要对其质量进行评价的，另外，有时还会针对某一疾病相关的Meta分析进行汇总评价，制作时亦需要进行质量的评价。

各种类型的Meta分析的质量评价方法是不一致的，大家可以阅读相关的文献进行学习，例如曾宪涛老师的Meta分析系列就介绍了各种类型的Meta分析的质量评价。

本文，列举几个例子，让大家看一下本部分的写作方法。

①The methodological quality of RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane riskof bias tool. The methodological quality of retrospective studies was assessedby the modified Newcastle-Ottawascale(NOS),which consists of three factors:patient selection,comparability of the study groups,and assessment of outcome.A score of 0-9(allocated as stars)was allocated to each study except RCTs.RCTs and observationalstudies achieving six or more stars were considered to be of high quality.②Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Quality In Prognosis Studies(QUIPS)tool15with minor adaptations.The tool includes32key items divided into6domains:1)Study participation××××××.Foreach study, each individual key item was assessed,and each domain was gradedin one of the following categories of risk of bias,based on whether the domainfully complied, partly complied,did not comply at all,or did not report in respect of the characteristic expressed by the items:1)Low riskof bias;2)Moderate risk of bias;3) High risk of bias;4)Unknown.③Two investigators independently assessed each study’squality as“good,”“fair,”or“poor”by using predefined quality criteria based on USPSTF methods.We excluded all poor-quality randomized,controlled trialsand observational studies.In general,a good-quality study met all prespecified criteria.A fair-quality study did not meet at least1criterion but also did not have a known limitation that could invalidate its results.A poor-quality study had a fatal flaw or multiple important limitations.We supplemented the USPSTF criteria with criteria from the National Institute forHealth and Clinical Excellence for the quality assessment of observationalstudies.We resolved any disagreements through discussion.④Quality was assessed using elements of the STROBEchecklist for cohort studies by 2reviewers(×××and×××).A third reviewer(×××)was enlisted to resolve disagreements regarding theabstracted data.⑤Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies according to the Jadad standards.The overall scores range from0to5.Scores of0,2and3,5were regarded as low and high scores,respectively.Disagreements were also settled down by discussion among authors.⑥Although many scales are available to assess the validity andquality of trials,none can provide an adequately reliable assessment.Therefore,we selected a number of basic criteria for assessing the validity ofthe studies,as suggested by the Cochrane Handbook,which are frequently used in meta-analysis of×××.The assessment was conducted by two independent reviewers and all disparities between them were resolved by consensus.。

体育研究体育运动科学领域meta 分析文献发表的方法学质量评价廖建明(私立华联学院广东·广州510663)中图分类号：G807.0文献标识码：A文章编号：1672-7894（2013）24-0106-02作者简介:廖建明(1983-),女,广东广州人,助教,研究方向为运动人体科学。

摘要目的：评价国内外发表体育运动科学领域meta 分析的方法学质量。

方法:电子检索中国知网(CNKI)、Web of Science,选用OQAQ 量表进行方法学质量评价。

结果:共纳入14篇合格文献，OQAQ 均分5.07±1.86分，属有小错误；方法学质量问题体现在研究者对文献筛选偏倚控制意识不高，没对原始研究使用真实性评价标准，缺乏全面恰当评价真实性。

结论:按照一定的规范进行体育运动科学领域试验设计和系统评价，以提高该领域循证证据的质量。

关键词系统评价Meta 分析运动A Systematic Evaluation of the Quality of Meta -analysis in the Sport Science Literature //Liao JianmingAbstract Aim:The purpose of this study was to systematically e-valuate the quality of meta-analyses that address topics pertinentto sport science.Method:A systematic search of CNKI,Web of Science was undertaken.To assess report quality,the included meta-analyses were assessed using the Overview Quality Assess-ment Questionnaire (OQAQ).Results:A total of 14reports of meta-analyses were included.The overall quality of reports of meta-analyses was found to be with minor flaws,with an estimat-ed mean overall OQAQ score of 5.07±1.86.It was noted prob-lems with the reporting of key characteristics of meta-analyses,such as avoidance of bias in the inclusion of studies and appro-priately referring to the validity of the included studies.Conclu-sion:Researchers and reviewers should be encouraged to follow established methodological guidelines for the conduct and report-ing of studies in the field of sport science.Key words systematic review;meta-analysis;sport science循证医学(EBM)的基本原理是通过全面、系统地收集质量可靠的客观证据，合并起来进行的Meta 分析，得出简明的综合结论，又称系统综述或荟萃分析是医学治疗学的决策指南和发展方向。

系统评价Meta分析方法学质量的评价工具AMSTAR一、本文概述Overview of this article本文旨在探讨和评价《系统评价Meta分析方法学质量的评价工具AMSTAR》这篇文章，深入解析AMSTAR（A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews）这一评价工具在系统评价和Meta分析中的应用和重要性。

我们将从AMSTAR的背景、目的、方法、结果以及讨论等方面进行全面介绍，以便读者更好地理解和掌握这一评价工具。

This article aims to explore and evaluate the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) evaluation tool for the quality of meta-analysis methodology, and to provide an in-depth analysis of its application and importance in system evaluation and meta-analysis. We will provide a comprehensive introduction to AMSTAR from its background, purpose, methods, results, and discussion, in order for readers to better understand and master this evaluation tool.我们将简要介绍系统评价和Meta分析在医学研究中的重要性，以及为什么需要对这些方法学质量进行评价。

接着，我们将详细介绍AMSTAR的发展背景、理论基础和构建过程，以便读者了解该评价工具的起源和依据。

We will briefly introduce the importance of system evaluation and meta-analysis in medical research, as well as why it is necessary to evaluate the quality of these methodologies. Next, we will provide a detailed introduction to the development background, theoretical basis, and construction process of AMSTAR, so that readers can understand the origin and basis of this evaluation tool.在方法部分，我们将详细介绍AMSTAR的具体内容、评分标准和评价方法，包括各个条目的定义、评分依据以及如何运用AMSTAR对系统评价和Meta分析进行质量评价。

系统评价Meta分析详细介绍目录一、系统评价Meta分析的基本概念 (2)1.1 系统评价的定义 (3)1.2 Meta分析的定义 (4)二、系统评价Meta分析的目的和意义 (4)三、系统评价Meta分析的流程 (5)3.1 明确研究问题 (6)3.2 检索文献 (7)3.3 筛选文献 (8)3.4 数据提取 (9)3.5 整理数据 (10)3.6 进行Meta分析 (11)3.7 结果解释 (12)3.8 评估偏倚风险 (13)3.9 结果的综合评价 (14)四、系统评价Meta分析中的统计方法 (15)4.1 基本统计方法 (16)4.2 元分析统计方法 (17)五、系统评价Meta分析的质量评价 (19)5.1 文献质量评价 (20)5.2 结果的一致性评价 (21)5.3 可靠性评价 (22)六、系统评价Meta分析的结果解释和应用 (24)6.1 结果的解释 (25)6.2 结果的应用 (26)6.3 对未来研究的启示 (27)七、系统评价Meta分析的局限性 (28)7.1 样本选择偏差 (29)7.2 数据质量问题 (31)7.3 不同研究结果间的异质性 (32)八、系统评价Meta分析的伦理问题 (33)8.1 保护受试者隐私 (35)8.2 避免学术不端行为 (36)九、系统评价Meta分析的未来发展趋势 (37)9.1 技术的发展 (38)9.2 方法学的创新 (39)一、系统评价Meta分析的基本概念系统评价(Systematic Review,简称SR)是一种多学科研究方法，旨在通过收集、整理和分析大量关于某一主题的独立研究结果，以便得出全面、准确和可靠的结论。

Meta分析(Metaanalysis)是系统评价的一种扩展和深化，它通过对多个独立研究的统计分析，对原始研究结果进行加权汇总，以提高研究结果的可靠性和推广性。

系统评价的目的是对现有的研究进行全面、客观和公正的评估，从而为实践提供有价值的指导。

AHRQ横断面研究评价标准
美国卫生保健质量和研究机构（Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality，AHRQ）对观察性研究的质量评价标
准进行了推荐，其中推荐NOS量表作为评价队列研究和病例-对照研究的标准；推荐评价横断面研究（cross-sectional study）的标准包括11个条目，分别用“是”、“否”及“不清楚”作答：
（1）是否明确了资料的来源（调查，文献回顾）?
（2）是否列出了暴露组和非暴露组（病例和对照）的纳入及排除标准或参考以往的出版物？
（3）是否给出了鉴别患者的时间阶段？
（4）如果不是人群来源的话，研究对象是否连续？
（5）评价者的主观因素是否掩盖了研究对象其他方面情况？
（6）描述了任何为保证质量而进行的评估（如对主要结局指标的检测/再检测）；（7）解释了排除分析的任何患者的理由；
（8）描述了如何评价和（或）控制混杂因素的措施；
（9）如果可能，解释了分析中是如何处理丢失数据的；
（10）总结了患者的应答率及数据收集的完整性；
（11）如果有随访，查明预期的患者不完整数据所占的百分比或随访结果。

Meta分析：一种新的文献综述方法程新，黄林，李昆太（江西农业大学生物科学与工程学院，江西南昌330045）摘要：Meta分析是一种新的文献综述分析方法，它比传统的文献综述有更好的分析效果。

在教育学、心理学、医学等领域已得到广泛的应用，但是在生物工程和生物技术领域还较为少见。

通过实例，详细介绍了Meta分析的基本内容、分析方法及RevMan 软件的使用。

关键词：Meta分析；文献综述；RevMan中图分类号：G202文献标识码：A文章编号：1004-874X（2010）06-0376-03Meta-Analysis:A new method in reviewCHENG Xin,HUANG Lin,LI Kun-tai(College of Biological Science and Engineering，Jiangxi Agriculture University，Nanchang330045，China)Abstract:Meta-Analysis is a new method to synthesize literature under a same subject，it had more merits than traditional reviews，and had been widely used in Education，Psychology and Medicine，but was new in biotechnology and bioengineering.Basal conceptions and methods of meta-Analysis and RevMan software were introduced with an example in this paper.Key words:Meta-Analysis;review;RevMan在科学研究中,研究目的相同的试验多达几十个、几百个、甚至几千个。

这个就用Cochrane风险偏倚评估工具，主要从6个领域条项目队偏倚风险进行评价，对每条指标采用“低度偏倚风险”、“偏倚风险部确定”、“高度偏倚风险”进行判定：（一）选择偏倚：（1）随机序列产生：详细描述了产生随机分配序列的方法，以便评估组件可比性；（2）分配隐藏：详细描述了隐藏随机分配序列的方法，以便判断干预措施分配情况是否能预知。

（二）实施偏倚：（1）对研究者和受试者施盲：详细描述了对研究者和受试者实施盲法的方法，以防其知晓受试者的干预措施。

提供了判断盲法是否有效的信息。

（三）测量偏倚：（1）研究结果盲法评价：详细描述了对研究结果评价者实施盲法的方法，以防其知晓受试者的干预措施。

提供了判断盲法是否有效的信息。

（四）随访偏倚：（1）结果数据的完整性：完整性的报告了每个主要结局指标的数据，包括失访及退出的。

是否明确报道了失访及退出，每组人数（与随机入组的总人数相比），失访/退出的原因，以便系统评价者行相关的处理。

（五）报告偏倚：（1）选择性报告研究结果：描述的信息可供系统评价者判断选择性报告研究结果的可能性及相关情况。

（六）其他偏倚：（1）除上述偏倚外，提供的信息是否可评估存在其他引起偏倚的因素。

若是已在计划书中提到某个问题或因素，需给出对应的回答。