期刊
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 60, 期 8, 页码 773-780出版社
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.10.022
关键词
meta-analysis; clinical trials; reporting guidelines; publishing; random allocation; publication bias
Objective: To assess the methodology of meta-analyses published in leading general and specialist medical journals over a 10-year period. Study Design and Setting: Volumes 1993-2002 of four general medicine journals and four specialist journals were searched by hand for meta-analyses including at least five controlled trials. Characteristics were assessed using a standardized questionnaire. Results: A total of 272 meta-analyses, which included a median of I I trials (range 5-195), were assessed. Most (81%) were published in general medicine journals. The median (range) number of databases searched increased from 1 (1-9) in 1993/1994 to 3.5 (1-21) in 2001/2002, P < 0.0001. The proportion of meta-analyses including searches by hand (10% in 1993/1994, 25% in 2001/2002, P = 0.005), searches of the grey literature (29%, 51%, P = 0.010 by chi-square test), and of trial registers (10%, 32%, P = 0.025) also increased. Assessments of the quality of trials also became more common (45%, 70%, P = 0.008), including whether allocation of patients to treatment groups had been concealed (24%, 60%, P = 0.001). The methodological and reporting quality was consistently higher in general medicine compared to specialist journals. Conclusion: Many meta-analyses published in leading journals have important methodological limitations. The situation has improved in recent years but considerable room for further improvements remains. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据