OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodology quality of systematic reviews or Meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for CHD published in Chinese journals, to spy the development and defficiency of systematic reviews in China. METHODS: Papers were retrieved by an electronic searching of CBM, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang databases, besides, a manual search of Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Medicine, Chinese Journal of Cardiology and Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine published from Jan. 2000 to Sep. 2012. The methodological quality of include literatures was evaluated according to the AMSTAR scale. RESULTS: A total of 68 systematic reviews/Meta-analysis were included, and results of AMSTAR scale showed: there was no high quality literatures, 17 (25.0%)were moderate, 51(75.0%)were low, and there was no statistical relation between methodology quality and published year. In detail, the major defficiency laid on: a lack of protocol, comprehensive searching strategy, quality identification of primary documents, self-evaluation of SR/Meta-analysis, adequate merger of primary documents, judgment of publication bias and conflict of interest. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology quality of systematic reviews or Meta-analysis on TCM for CHD published in Chinese journals needs to be improved, a systematic training on SR/Meta-analysis should be developed among those who working on TCM systematic reviews.%目的:评价中医药治疗冠心痛的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量,促进国内系统评价的发展.方法:计算机检索中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、维普数据库(VIP)及万方数据库；手工检索《中国循证医学杂志》、《中华心血管病杂志》、《国际心血管病杂志》及《中国中西医结合杂志》,引文亦进行检索,检索时间均为2000年1月-2012年9月；采用AMSTAR量表对纳入文献进行方法学质量评价.结果:共纳入68篇系统评价/Meta分析,AMSTAR量表评分结果显示,无高质量文献,中等质量者17篇(25.0％),低质量者51篇(75.0％),尚不能认为系统评价的方法学质量与发表年代有关；在提供研究计划书、文献查全率、原始文献质量鉴定、系统评价缺陷自评、原始研究的合成方法、发表偏倚判定及利益冲突说明等方面还需进一步提高.结论:中文期刊发表的中医药治疗冠心病的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量普遍较低,应加强系统评价/Meta分析人员的方法学培训.
展开▼
