Quality of Evidence of Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses in Nursing Field in China: Evaluation Based on GRADE Guideline_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

JIN Yinghui , ZHAO Sai , LU Cui , MA Yue ,  MENG Fanjie

Nursing College,Tranditional Chinese Medical University of Tianjin, Tianjin 300193, China;

Corresponding author：

MENG Fanjie, Email: mfj127@tjutcm.edu.cn

Keywords：

Nursing; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Quality of evidence

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20130238

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective 　To evaluate the quality of evidence of systematic reviews or meta-analyses regarding outcomes in nursing field in China using the Grade system, so as to get known of the status of the quality of evidence and promote the application of the evaluation of the quality of evidence of systematic reviews.
Methods 　The quality of evidence regarding the included outcomes was input, extracted and qualitatively graded, using GRADEpro 3.6 software. Then, we carefully analyzed and elaborated the factors of downgrading and upgrading that affects the quality of evidence in the process of evaluation.
Results 　53 systematic reviews or meta-analyses involving 188 outcomes were identified and evaluated. The results showed that high, moderate, low and very low levels of quality of evidence were 2.7%, 27.1%, 51.1%, and 19.1%, respectively; and low-level quality of evidence accounted for the most.
Conclusion 　The quality of evidence produced by systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field in China is poor and urgently needs improvement. The reviewers should abide by the methodological standards in the process of making systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The quality of evidence in terms of each outcome should be evaluated and fully reported.

Citation： JIN Yinghui,ZHAO Sai,LU Cui,MA Yue,MENG Fanjie. Quality of Evidence of Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses in Nursing Field in China: Evaluation Based on GRADE Guideline. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2013, 13(11): 1392-1396. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20130238 Copy

1.	靳英辉, 马恩婷, 花巍, 等. 国内护理领域系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告学质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
2.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ, 2008, 336 (7651): 995-998.
3.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE:证据质量和推荐强度分级的共识, 中国循证医学杂志, 2009, 9(10: 8-11.
4.	Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 2004, 328(7454): 1490.
5.	袁金秋, 刘雅丽, 杨克虎, 等. 系统评价再评价纳入研究的质量评价方法调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(2): 238-242.
6.	陈耀龙, 杨克虎, 姚亮, 等. GRADE系统方法学进展. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2013, 8(1): 64-65.
7.	GRADE 工作组. GRADE 指南: Ⅰ. 导论—— GRADE 证据概要表和结果总结表中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(4): 437-445.
8.	Schünemann H, Brozek J, Oxman A, et al. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The GRADE Working Group, 2009. Available from http://www.cc-ims.net/gradepro.
9.	赵阳, 潘建红, 张立力, 等. 青春期摄入豆类食品对女性乳腺癌发病影响的系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(5): 550-556.
10.	刘东艳, 张玉洁, 曾宪涛, 等. 根管治疗中四手操作与传统操作疗效比较的系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(6): 656-665.
11.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE Guidelines: 4. Rating the Quality of Evidence-study Limitations (Risk of Bias). J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(12): 1277-1282.
12.	http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/cochrane/handbook/.
13.	Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaborationrupdated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol, 2010, 63(8): el-37.
14.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(12): 1283-1293.
15.	方积乾. 卫生统计学. 第5版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2006: 137.
16.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Grade Guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence: Inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(12): 1294-1302.
17.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(12): 1303-1310.
18.	Ioannidis JP. why most published research findings are false. Plos Med, 2005, 2(8): e124.
19.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE指南: Ⅸ.证据质量升级. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(12): 1459-1463.

1. 靳英辉, 马恩婷, 花巍, 等. 国内护理领域系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告学质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ, 2008, 336 (7651): 995-998.
3. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE:证据质量和推荐强度分级的共识, 中国循证医学杂志, 2009, 9(10: 8-11.
4. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 2004, 328(7454): 1490.
5. 袁金秋, 刘雅丽, 杨克虎, 等. 系统评价再评价纳入研究的质量评价方法调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(2): 238-242.
6. 陈耀龙, 杨克虎, 姚亮, 等. GRADE系统方法学进展. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2013, 8(1): 64-65.
7. GRADE 工作组. GRADE 指南: Ⅰ. 导论—— GRADE 证据概要表和结果总结表中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(4): 437-445.
8. Schünemann H, Brozek J, Oxman A, et al. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The GRADE Working Group, 2009. Available from http://www.cc-ims.net/gradepro.
9. 赵阳, 潘建红, 张立力, 等. 青春期摄入豆类食品对女性乳腺癌发病影响的系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(5): 550-556.
10. 刘东艳, 张玉洁, 曾宪涛, 等. 根管治疗中四手操作与传统操作疗效比较的系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(6): 656-665.
11. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE Guidelines: 4. Rating the Quality of Evidence-study Limitations (Risk of Bias). J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(12): 1277-1282.
12. http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/cochrane/handbook/.
13. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaborationrupdated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol, 2010, 63(8): el-37.
14. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(12): 1283-1293.
15. 方积乾. 卫生统计学. 第5版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2006: 137.
16. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Grade Guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence: Inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(12): 1294-1302.
17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(12): 1303-1310.
18. Ioannidis JP. why most published research findings are false. Plos Med, 2005, 2(8): e124.
19. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE指南: Ⅸ.证据质量升级. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(12): 1459-1463.

Previous Article
Implementation of Network Meta-Analysis Using Stata Software

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Quality of Evidence of Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses in Nursing Field in China: Evaluation Based on GRADE Guideline

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Format

Content