| 左氧氟沙星治疗耐多药肺结核疗效的系统评价/荟萃分析的质量评价 |
| 投稿时间：2016-04-17 修订日期：2016-07-29 点此下载全文 |
| 引用本文：万素馨,黄道秋,余蕾,向毅,方伟.左氧氟沙星治疗耐多药肺结核疗效的系统评价/荟萃分析的质量评价[J].药学实践杂志,2016,34(6):546~551 |
| 摘要点击次数: 1098 |
| 全文下载次数: 834 |
| 作者 | 单位 | E-mail | | 万素馨 | 重庆市三峡中心医院, 药学部, 重庆 404000 | | | 黄道秋 | 重庆市三峡中心医院, 药学部, 重庆 404000 | | | 余蕾 | 重庆市三峡中心医院, 药学部, 重庆 404000 | | | 向毅 | 重庆市三峡中心医院, 御安分院肝病中心, 重庆 404000 | | | 方伟 | 重庆市三峡中心医院, 药学部, 重庆 404000 | 315093932@qq.com |
|
|
| 中文摘要:目的 评价国内发表的左氧氟沙星治疗耐多药肺结核疗效的系统评价/荟萃（Meta）分析的质量，促进左氧氟沙星的合理使用。方法 检索中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库、维普、万方等数据库相关文献，收集近10年发表的左氧氟沙星治疗耐多药肺结核疗效的系统评价/Meta分析，由两名研究者独立进行文献的筛选、资料提取、质量评价等，再进行交叉核对。采用OQAQ量表、AMSTAR量表对纳入文献进行方法学质量评价，采用PRISMA量表进行报告质量评价，然后进行相关性分析。结果 共纳入14篇文献，4篇Meta分析，10篇系统评价。OQAQ方法学质量评分最高为7分，最低3.5分，平均6.21分；AMSTAR条目符合率最高的为条目1和9，条目2、4、8、10的符合率较好；PRISMA报告质量评分最高为21分，最低13.5分，平均19.29分。存在的问题主要有：检索策略和范围不全面、纳入与排除标准不具体、部分研究未报道选择偏倚和未进行质量评价。结论 国内关于左氧氟沙星治疗耐多药肺结核疗效的系统评价质量较好，但方法学质量和报告质量仍有待进一步提高。 |
| 中文关键词:左氧氟沙星 耐多药肺结核 系统评价 荟萃分析 |
| |
| Quality assessment of systematic reviews/Meta-analyses correlated to levofloxacin for MDR-TB |
|
|
| Abstract:Objective Assessing the publication and quality of systematic reviews/Meta-analyses correlated to levofloxacin for MDR-TB in China to promote the rational use of levofloxacin. Methods A literature retrieving was made in CNKI/VIP/WanFang Med-online/CBM and other databases, to collect literatures published in the nearly 10 years correlated to systematic reviews/Meta-analyses of levofloxacin for MDR-TB. Two researchers screened the literatures, extracted data and assessed the quality of literatures independently, and then cross-checked. OQAQ and AMSTAR scale were used to qualify the methodological quality of included studies, PRISMA scale was used to evaluate the report quality. Results Fourteen literatures were included, of which 4 were Meta analysis and 10 were systematic reviews. OQAQ methodological quality rating up to 7 points and the lowest was 3.5 points, the average was 6.21 points. The highest rate of in line with AMSTAR were entry 1 and 9, and the compliance rate of entries 2, 4, 8, 10 were good as well. PRISMA report quality scored up to 21 points and the lowest was 13.5 points, the average was 19.29 points. The main problems were:incomprehensive search strategy and scrope, none specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, unreported selection bias and no evaluation of the quality of part of the included studies. Conclusion The publication and quality of systematic reviews/Meta-analyses correlated to levofloxacin for MDR-TB in China were good, but still need further improvement. |
| keywords:levofloxacin multidrug-resistant tuberculosis systematic review Meta analysis |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
