系统评价和荟萃分析汇集了来自个别研究的数据，以产生更高水平的证据供指南评估。这些评论最终指导临床医生和利益相关者做出与健康相关的决策。然而,证据综合的信息量和质量本质上取决于已纳入元研究项目的质量。此外，除了纳入的个别研究的质量之外，只有一个方法正确的过程，关于系统评价和荟萃分析本身，可以产生可靠和有效的证据合成。因此，元研究项目的质量也会影响证据综合的可靠性。在本概述中,作者提供了一些最常用的工具的优缺点和主要特征的综合，以评估个别研究的质量，系统评价,和荟萃分析。具体来说,在这项工作中考虑的工具是纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表（NOS）和加强流行病学观察研究报告（STROBE）的观察研究，综合报告试验标准(CONSORT)，Jadad量表,用于随机对照试验的Cochrane偏倚风险工具2(RoB2)，系统评价和荟萃分析（PRISMA）和多重系统评价2（AMSTAR2）的首选报告项目，和AMSTAR-PLUS进行荟萃分析。已经知道什么？：证据合成的信息量和质量本质上取决于已汇集到元研究项目中的质量。除了纳入的个别研究的质量之外，只有一个方法正确的过程，关于系统评价和荟萃分析本身，可以产生可靠和有效的证据合成。什么是新的？：在本概述中，作者提供了一些最常用的工具的优缺点和主要特征的综合，以评估个别研究的质量，系统评价,和荟萃分析。潜在影响：本概述作为起点和简要指南，用于识别和理解评估元研究中包含的研究质量的主要和最常用的工具。这里的作者分享了他们发表几篇涵盖医学科学不同领域的元研究相关文章的经验。
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses pool data from individual studies to generate a higher level of evidence to be evaluated by
guidelines. These reviews ultimately guide clinicians and stakeholders in health-related decisions. However, the informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Moreover, beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. Hence, quality of meta-research projects also affects evidence synthesis reliability. In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Specifically, the tools considered in this work are the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (
NOS) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), the Jadad scale, the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB2) for randomized controlled trials, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2), and AMSTAR-PLUS for meta-analyses. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN?: The informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. WHAT IS NEW?: In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. POTENTIAL IMPACT: This overview serves as a starting point and a brief guide to identify and understand the main and most frequently used tools for assessing the quality of studies included in meta-research. The authors here share their experience in publishing several meta-research-related articles covering different areas of medical sciences.
PDF(Sci-hub)