SCI期刊已发表的眼科领域Non-Cochrane系统评价和Meta分析情况

摘要
图/表
参考文献(18)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (0 KB) HTML (33 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的调查当前眼科领域已发表非考克兰系统评价及Meta分析情况。方法采用PubMed及EMBASE数据库智能检索功能检索眼科领域的系统评价和Meta分析，检索时间截止到2017年1月30日。借助Endnote软件排除重复研究及考克兰系统评价，通过阅读标题、摘要及全文排除不相关研究，将最终纳入研究按作者来源、发表年限、研究类型等进行归类分析。结果检索到10 369篇相关文章，排除重复及不相关研究（考克兰系统评价882篇、重复研究1586篇、不相关研究6480篇），最终纳入研究共计1421篇。将纳入研究分类分析显示：共有来自53个不同国家参与发表此类研究，其中发表数量前3位的国家分别是中国441篇（31.03%）、美国229篇（16.12%）、英国204篇（14.36%）。共有433种不同杂志发表此类研究，发表数量位于前3位的杂志是PLoS One 102篇（7.18%）、Ophthalmology 97篇（6.83%）、Br J Ophthalmol 57篇（4.01%）。疾病类型前3位为视网膜疾病463篇（32.58%）、青光眼226篇（15.90%）及白内障120篇（8.44%）。定性研究548篇（38.56%），其余为定量研究873篇（61.44%），后者包括干预性研究411篇（47.08%）及观察性研究462篇（52.92%）。结论眼科领域系统评价及Meta分析发表数量逐年增加，越来越多的来自不同国家的学者参与此类研究，尤其是中国。视网膜疾病及青光眼依然是当前研究的热点。逐年增多高质量眼科临床证据的发表，将为眼科临床实践提供强有力的理论依据。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	宋建
	张立军
	刘新

关键词 ：考克兰, 系统评价, Meta分析, 眼科, SCI期刊, 循证医学

Abstract：Objective To investigate the present situation of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and Meta-analysis published in the field of ophthalmology.Methods PubMed and EMBASE database were searched by their intelligent search function to find systematic reviews and Meta-analysis in the field of Ophthalmology up to 30 January 2017.Duplicate researches and Cochrane systematic reviews were excluded by Endnote software.Irrelevant studies were excluded by reading titles,abstracts and full text.The final included studies were classified according to author′s source,publication years,study types and so on.Results A total of 10 369 records were identified.After excluding Cochrane systematic reviews(882),duplicated studies(1586)and unrelated studies(6480),1421 studies were included in the final analysis.The classification analysis to be included in the study showed that authors came from 53 countries participated in the publication of these articles.The top three countries were China(441,31.03%),USA(229,16.12%)and UK(204,14.36%).A total of 433 different journals published these studies,and the top three journals were PLoS One(102,7.18%),Ophthalmology(97,6.83%),and Br J Ophthalmol(57,4.01%).The top three diseases were retinal disease(463,32.58%),glaucoma(226,15.90%)and cataract(120,8.44%).Qualitative study accounted for a large proportion(548,38.56%),and the remainder were quantitative studies(873,61.44%),the latter included 411 interventional studies(47.08%)and 462 observational studies(52.2%).Conclusion The amount of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in the field of ophthalmology has been increased year by year,and more and more authors coming from different countries are actively participating in this field,especially in China.Retinal disease and glaucoma are still the focus of the current study.With the gradual increase of high-quality clinical evidence for ophthalmology,they will provide a strong and effective guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of eye diseases.

Key words： Cochrane Systematic reviews Meta-analysis Ophthalmology SCI journal Evidence-based medicine

引用本文:

宋建;张立军;刘新. SCI期刊已发表的眼科领域Non-Cochrane系统评价和Meta分析情况[J]. 中国当代医药, 2019, 26(5): 199-202.
SONG Jian;ZHANG Li-jun;LIU Xin. Non-Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analysis on ophthalmology published in SCI Journals. 中国当代医药, 2019, 26(5): 199-202.

链接本文:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/ 或 http://dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/Y2019/V26/I5/199

[1]	Horwitz RI，Hayes-Conroy A，Caricchio R，et al.From Evidence based medicine to medicine based evidence[J].Am J Med，2017，130（11）：1246-1250.
[2]	DjulbegovicB，GuyattGH.Progressinevidence-basedmedicine：a quarter century on[J].Lancet，2017，390（10 092）：415-423.
[3]	Sheridan DJ，Julian DG.Achievements and limitations of evidence-based Medicine[J].J Am Coll Cardiol，2016，68（2）：204-213.
[4]	Govindarajan R，Narayanaswami P.Evidence-based medicine for every day，everyone，and every therapeutic study[J].Muscle Nerve，2018，58（4）：486-496.
[5]	韩锟，邹海东.当前我国眼科Meta分析类研究的问题与对策[J].中华眼科杂志，2011，47（1）：7-10.
[6]	Jassem J.Bright and dark sides of evidence-based medicine[J].Pol Arch Med Wewn，2016，126（5）：347-352.
[7]	Kelly MP，Heath I，Howick J，et al.The importance of values in evidence-based medicine[J].BMC Med Ethics，2015，16（1）：69.
[8]	Hinneburg I.Current perspectives on evidence based medicine[J].Med Monatsschr Pharm，2015，38（7）：276-279.
[9]	王宁利，李仕明，李文生.我国循证眼科的发展现状、问题及对策[J].中华眼科杂志，2013，49（5）：477-480.
[10]	李仕明，王宁利，詹思延.重视系统评价和Meta分析优先报告条目在眼科的应用[J].中华实验眼科杂志，2017，35（11）：961-965.
[11]	Kiuchi Y.Evidence-based medicine in glaucoma surgery[J].Taiwan J Ophthalmol，2016，6（4）：177-181.
[12]	Sousa DC，Leal I Costa J，et al.Analysis of the cochrane review：anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for prevention of postoperative vitreous cavity hemorrhage after vitrectomy for proliferative diabetic retinopathy[J].Acta Med Port，2017，30（7-8）：513-516.
[13]	SaldanhaIJ，DickersinK，WangX，etal.Outcomesin Cochrane systematic reviews addressing four common eye conditions：anevaluationofcompletenessandcomparability[J].PLoSOne，2014，9（10）： 1-10.
[14]	Bloch SB，Larsen M.Treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration with vascular endothelial growth factor：a survey of a cochrane review[J].Ugeskr Laeger，2009，171（47）：3435-3437.
[15]	Moseley AM，Elkins MR，Herbert RD，et al.Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-cochrane reviews：survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy[J].J Clin Epidemiol，2009，62（10）：1021-1030.
[16]	Ruano J，Gómez-García F，Gay-Mimbrera J，et al.Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-cochrane systematic reviews：a meta-epidemiological study protocol[J].Syst Rev，2018，7（1）：1-6.
[17]	Useem J，Brennan A，LaValley M，et al.Systematic differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane meta-analyses on the same topic：a matched pair analysis[J].PLoS One，2015，10（12）：1-17.
[18]	Chen H，Jhanji V.Survey of systematic reviews and metaanalyses published in ophthalmology[J].Br J Ophthalmol，2012，96（6）：896-899.