PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
Systematic reviews have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice and policy; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and quality of SRs of interventions to improve immunization coverage in different settings. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage using the recommended Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline.PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched to identify SRs of interventions to improve immunization coverage, indexed up to May 2016. Two authors independently screened the search output, assessed study eligibility, and extracted data from eligible SRs using a 27-item data collection form derived from PRISMA. Discrepancies in reviews assessments were resolved by discussion and consensus.A total of 57 reviews were included in this study with a mean percentage of applicable PRISMA items that were met across all studies of 66% (range 19-100%) and median compliance of 70%. 39 out of the 57 reviews were published after the release of the PRISMA statement in 2009. Highest compliance was observed in items related to the \"description of rational\", \"description of eligibility criteria\", \"synthesis of results\" and \"provision of a general interpretation of the results\" (items #3, #6, #14 and #26, respectively). Compliance was poorest in the items \"describing summary of evidence\" (item 24, 19%), \"describing indication of review protocol and registration\" (item 5, 26%) and \"describing results of risk of bias across studies (item 22, 33%).The overall reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions to improve vaccination coverage requires significant improvement. There remains a need for additional research targeted at addressing potential barriers to compliance and strategies to improve compliance with PRISMA guideline.
摘要：
系统评价对于指导临床实践和政策变得越来越重要；然而，对于在不同环境中提高免疫覆盖率的干预措施的SRs报告特征和质量知之甚少.本研究的目的是使用推荐的系统评价和Meta分析（PRISMA）指南评估旨在提高疫苗接种覆盖率的干预措施的系统评价的报告质量。搜索PubMed和Cochrane图书馆，以确定提高免疫覆盖率的干预措施的SR。截至2016年5月。两位作者独立筛选了搜索输出，评估研究资格，并使用来自PRISMA的27项数据收集表格从符合条件的SR中提取数据。通过讨论和协商一致解决了审查评估中的差异。本研究共纳入57篇综述，所有研究中符合的PRISMA项目的平均百分比为66％（范围19-100％），中位依从性为70％。57条评论中有39条是在2009年PRISMA声明发布后发布的。在与“理性描述”相关的项目中观察到最高的合规性，\"资格标准描述\",“结果综合”和“提供对结果的一般解释”(分别为项目3、6、14和26)。在“描述证据摘要”项目中，合规性最差(项目24，19%)，“描述审查方案和登记的指征”（第5项，26%）和“描述研究中偏倚风险的结果”（第22项，33%）。提高疫苗接种覆盖率的干预措施的系统评价的总体报告质量需要显著提高。仍然需要进行更多的研究，以解决潜在的合规性障碍和改善PRISMA指南合规性的策略。
