meta分析文章评价标准的评价与分析──基于meta分析文章的糖尿病药物治疗管理──

Tomoka Osumi, H. Iijima
{"title":"meta分析文章评价标准的评价与分析──基于meta分析文章的糖尿病药物治疗管理──","authors":"Tomoka Osumi, H. Iijima","doi":"10.5649/JJPHCS.39.347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"meta-analysis is ranked among the highest-quality study designs, objective assessment criteria specific to meta-analysis have not been reported. As meta-analysis is complex in structure, we developed the Quality Score, which assesses the quality and format of meta-analysis. In this study, we attempted to assess the structure and quality of meta-analysis articles on type 2 diabetes. meta-analysis 2 diabetes from PubMed and the Cochrane Library. We then assessed the structure (PRISMA statement) and quality (the Quality Score) of the articles found by assigning scores. We further extracted articles above a certain level, and analyzed and organized the data with statistically significant differences. The initial search for meta-analysis articles identified 217 articles from PubMed and 25 from the Cochrane Library. Eight of the 25 articles from the Cochrane Library were also found among the articles from PubMed. Of the resultant 234 articles retrieved by the search formula, 44 were studied. The assessment score (0 – 100) for the structure (PRISMA statement) of meta-analysis was 60.2 ± 22.0 % (Mean ± SD), while the Quality Score was 53.0 ± 18.9 % . This study showed that the assessment of the quality of meta-analysis articles is linked to the assessment of the structure of the articles. In order to produce the great effect expected from diabetes medications, healthcare professionals are required to go beyond medication management and offer a wide range of therapeutic management. To do this, management priority should be given to items with secured evidence.","PeriodicalId":14621,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Journal of Hospital Pharmacy","volume":"6 1","pages":"347-355"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment and Analysis of the Assessment Criteria for Meta-Analysis Articles:─ Management of Diabetes Pharmacotherapy Based on Meta-Analysis Articles ─\",\"authors\":\"Tomoka Osumi, H. Iijima\",\"doi\":\"10.5649/JJPHCS.39.347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"meta-analysis is ranked among the highest-quality study designs, objective assessment criteria specific to meta-analysis have not been reported. As meta-analysis is complex in structure, we developed the Quality Score, which assesses the quality and format of meta-analysis. In this study, we attempted to assess the structure and quality of meta-analysis articles on type 2 diabetes. meta-analysis 2 diabetes from PubMed and the Cochrane Library. We then assessed the structure (PRISMA statement) and quality (the Quality Score) of the articles found by assigning scores. We further extracted articles above a certain level, and analyzed and organized the data with statistically significant differences. The initial search for meta-analysis articles identified 217 articles from PubMed and 25 from the Cochrane Library. Eight of the 25 articles from the Cochrane Library were also found among the articles from PubMed. Of the resultant 234 articles retrieved by the search formula, 44 were studied. The assessment score (0 – 100) for the structure (PRISMA statement) of meta-analysis was 60.2 ± 22.0 % (Mean ± SD), while the Quality Score was 53.0 ± 18.9 % . This study showed that the assessment of the quality of meta-analysis articles is linked to the assessment of the structure of the articles. In order to produce the great effect expected from diabetes medications, healthcare professionals are required to go beyond medication management and offer a wide range of therapeutic management. To do this, management priority should be given to items with secured evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14621,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Japanese Journal of Hospital Pharmacy\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"347-355\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Japanese Journal of Hospital Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5649/JJPHCS.39.347\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Journal of Hospital Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5649/JJPHCS.39.347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

荟萃分析是最高质量的研究设计之一,针对荟萃分析的客观评价标准尚未报道。由于荟萃分析的结构复杂,我们开发了质量评分,用于评估荟萃分析的质量和格式。在这项研究中,我们试图评估关于2型糖尿病的meta分析文章的结构和质量。meta分析2糖尿病来自PubMed和Cochrane图书馆。然后,我们通过分配分数来评估所发现文章的结构(PRISMA声明)和质量(质量分数)。我们进一步抽取一定水平以上的文章,对有统计学差异的数据进行分析整理。最初对meta分析文章的搜索发现,217篇文章来自PubMed, 25篇来自Cochrane图书馆。Cochrane图书馆的25篇文章中有8篇也出现在PubMed的文章中。在通过搜索公式检索到的234篇文章中,研究了44篇。meta分析的结构(PRISMA语句)评估评分(0 ~ 100分)为60.2±22.0% (Mean±SD),质量评分为53.0±18.9%。本研究表明,对meta分析文章质量的评估与文章结构的评估有关。为了使糖尿病药物产生预期的巨大效果,医疗保健专业人员需要超越药物管理,提供广泛的治疗管理。要做到这一点,应优先管理有可靠证据的项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessment and Analysis of the Assessment Criteria for Meta-Analysis Articles:─ Management of Diabetes Pharmacotherapy Based on Meta-Analysis Articles ─
meta-analysis is ranked among the highest-quality study designs, objective assessment criteria specific to meta-analysis have not been reported. As meta-analysis is complex in structure, we developed the Quality Score, which assesses the quality and format of meta-analysis. In this study, we attempted to assess the structure and quality of meta-analysis articles on type 2 diabetes. meta-analysis 2 diabetes from PubMed and the Cochrane Library. We then assessed the structure (PRISMA statement) and quality (the Quality Score) of the articles found by assigning scores. We further extracted articles above a certain level, and analyzed and organized the data with statistically significant differences. The initial search for meta-analysis articles identified 217 articles from PubMed and 25 from the Cochrane Library. Eight of the 25 articles from the Cochrane Library were also found among the articles from PubMed. Of the resultant 234 articles retrieved by the search formula, 44 were studied. The assessment score (0 – 100) for the structure (PRISMA statement) of meta-analysis was 60.2 ± 22.0 % (Mean ± SD), while the Quality Score was 53.0 ± 18.9 % . This study showed that the assessment of the quality of meta-analysis articles is linked to the assessment of the structure of the articles. In order to produce the great effect expected from diabetes medications, healthcare professionals are required to go beyond medication management and offer a wide range of therapeutic management. To do this, management priority should be given to items with secured evidence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Assessment and Analysis of the Assessment Criteria for Meta-Analysis Articles:─ Management of Diabetes Pharmacotherapy Based on Meta-Analysis Articles ─ ベネコートBMI-40とBMI-60との苦味マスキング効果の比較 「創薬ボランティアのしおり」,「被験者管理票」の利用と治験コーディネーター業務 Hemodializability of Pimobendan and Its Active Metabolite, UD-CG 212, in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure Undergoing Hemodialysis An Investigation into the Current Management for Patients with Long-Term Withdrawal Periods from Drugs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1