|
|
|
| Non-Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analysis on ophthalmology published in SCI Journals |
| SONG Jian ZHANG Li-jun▲ LIU Xin |
| Department of Ophthalmology,Dalian Third People′s Hospital,Liaoning Province,Dalian 116091,China |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [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.
|
|
|
|
