目的 采用AMSTAR-2量表和PRISMA声明对空气污染对心脑血管系统损伤领域的系统评价进行质量评价,并初步探讨方法学质量和报告质量间可能的关系.方法 计算机检索PubMed、Web of science、EMBASE和Cochrane系统评价数据库,检索时限均为从建库至2022年8月.采用主题词与自由词相结合的检索方式,并根据具体数据库调整.两名评价员分别独立采用AMSTAR-2和PRISMA工具评价纳入文献的方法学和报告学质量.结果 共纳入48篇系统评价或meta分析,其中系统评价10篇、meta分析38篇.AMSTAR-2评价结果显示,AMSTAR-2工具得分范围为3.5～13分,平均得分为8.21分.16个条目中有7个条目报告率＜50％,分别为条目2、3、6、7、9、12、13.其中报告率最低的3个条目分别是"条目3:研究设计的选择依据是否给予解释(0/48,0.00％)"和"条目7:是否提供排除研究的清单以及排除理由(1/48,2.08％)"、"条目13:在解释和讨论系统评价的结果时是否考虑了单个研究的偏倚风险(8/48,16.67％)".PRISMA评价结果显示,PRISMA声明得分范围为9.5～25分,平均得分为19.57分.以下3个条目有明显的报告缺失(＜50％):"条目5:方案与注册(13/48,27.08％)"、"条目12:单个研究存在的偏倚(17/48,35.42％)"和"条目19:研究中存在的偏倚风险(11/48,22.92％)".29.16％(14/48)的文献PRISMA评分较高,但AMSATR-2评分较低.结论 当前空气污染对心脑血管系统损伤领域的系统评价质量仍有提高的空间.高报告学质量的文献也可能存在方法学质量较低的情况.建议研究者应当严格按照AMSTAR-2和PRISMA声明规范实施和报告,促进质量提高,为临床上的诊疗决策提供更加科学可靠的参考依据.
A comprehensive evaluation of systematic reviews in field of air pollution damage to cardiovascular system
Objectives To evaluate quality of systematic reviews/meta analysis(SRs/MAs)in the field of air pollution damage to the cardiovascular system by the AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA statement.Methods We searched four international databases(Pubmed,Web of science,EMBASE,Cochrane Library)from inception to August 2022.For each SR,two reviewers independently conducted AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA assessments with consensus and discussed challenges encountered.Results A total of 48 SRs/MAs were included,of which 10 were SRs,38 were MAs.The results of AMSTAR-2 showed that there were 7 items with reporting rate＜50％,the three lowest reported items were"Item 3:Whether the selection basis of the study design is explained(0/48,0.00％)"and"Item 7:Whether the list of excluded studies is provided and the reasons for exclusion(1/48,2.08％)","Item 13:Whether the risk of bias of individual studies was considered(8/48,16.67％)".PRISMA evaluation result showed that the PRISMA statement scores range from 9.5 to 25,with an average score of 19.57.The reporting rates of 3 Items(Item 5:protocol and registration;Item 12:bias in a single study;Item 19:bias in the study risk)were 27.08％(13/48),35.42％(17/48)and 22.92％(11/48),respectively.There were 29.16％(14/48)of the literature with a higher PRISMA score,but a lower AMSATR-2 score.Conclusions The quality of SRs/MAs in the field of air pollution damage to the cardiovascular system still need to be improved.It is suggested that the AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA tools should be chosen appropriately to evaluate the quality of the SRs/MAs.
AMSTAR-2PRISMAAir pollutionCardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
