首页|中医药治疗良性前列腺增生随机对照试验的方法学质量与文献报告质量评价

中医药治疗良性前列腺增生随机对照试验的方法学质量与文献报告质量评价

扫码查看
目的:系统评价中医药治疗BPH随机对照试验(RCT)的方法学质量与文献报告质量,以期为今后的临床实践和研究提供方法学参考.方法:检索中国知网(CNKI)、维普网(VIP)、万方数据(WF)、PubMed中自2013年1月以来至2023年11月公开发表的关于中医药治疗BPH的RCT,2名研究者单独筛选文献,以Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具和CONSORT-中药复方为依据,评价纳入RCT的方法学质量和报告质量.结果:纳入88篇RCT,方法学质量方面,根据Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具评价:随机化过程中的偏倚27篇为低风险,61篇存在一定风险;偏离既定干预措施的偏倚(干预措施分配的效果)中76篇为低风险,10篇存在一定风险,2篇高风险;偏离既定干预措施的偏倚(干预措施依从的效果)中76篇为低风险,12篇存在一定风险;结局数据缺失的偏倚中 86篇为低风险,2篇存在一定风险;结局测量的偏倚中全部文献为低风险;选择性报告结果的偏倚中65篇为低风险,2篇存在一定风险,21篇为高风险.报告质量方面,根据CONSORT-中药复方的评价标准:1篇(0.01%)采用了适当的关键词,27篇(30.68%)描述了随机分配序列方法,5篇(5.68%)对分配限定细节进行了描述,3篇(3.41%)提及分配隐藏,3篇(3.41%)实施了盲法及分配隐藏,10篇(11.36%)记录了脱落情况,38篇(43.18%)报道了不良事件,18篇(20.45%)分析了试验局限性;所有文献均无完整的干预措施、无受试者流程图、无临床试验注册及研究方案.结论:目前国内有关中医药治疗BPH的RCT的方法学质量与文献报告质量普遍偏低,问题集中在实验设计不完整,缺乏随机与盲法的详细描述,结局指标缺少中医症候评价等方面.在采纳和运用其结果时应谨慎;研究者应遵循CONSORT声明进行方案设计、注册、实施及报告,充分考虑中医药治疗BPH的临床特点,合理设计和报告评价指标.
Methodological and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with traditional Chinese medicine
Objective:To systematically evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of randomized controlled tri-als(RCT)on the treatment of BPH with traditional Chinese medicine(TCM),in order to provide some methodological reference for clinical practice and research.Methods:We searched CNKI,VIP,Wanfang Data and PubMed for RCTs on the treatment of BPH with TCM published in China from January 2013 to November 2023.Two researchers screened the literature separately,and evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of the RCTs based on the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and CONSORT TCM compound.Results:Totally,88 RCTs were included in this study.In terms of methodological quality,according to the Cochrane bias risk assess-ment tool,27 biases in the process of randomization were identified as of low-risk and the other 61 of a certain risk.Among the alloca-tion-related biases deviating from the established interventions,76 were of low risk,10 of a certain risk and 2 of high risk;among the compliance-related biases deviating from the established interventions,76 were of low risk and 12 of a certain risk;among the biases due to missing outcome data,86 were of low risk and 2 of a certain risk,while all the biases due to outcome measurement were of low risk;and among the biases from selective reporting,65 were of low-risk,2 of a certain risk and 21 of high-risk.In terms of reporting quality,according to the evaluation criteria of consort TCM compound,appropriate key words were used in 1 RCT(0.01%),the ran-dom assignment sequence method described in 27(30.68%),the details of assignment limitation given in 5(5.68%),assignment concealment mentioned in 3(3.41%),the blind method and assignment concealment employed in 3(3.41%),fall-offs recorded in 10(11.36%),adverse events reported in 38(43.18%),and limitations of the trials analyzed in 18(20.45%).All the RCTs lacked complete intervention measures,subject flow chart,clinical trial registration and research schemes.Conclusion:At present,the methodological quality and reporting quality of RCTs on the treatment of BPH with TCM are generally low,with the main problems of incomplete experimental designs,lack of detailed description of randomized and blind methods,and insufficient TCM symptom eval-uation of outcome indicators.Researchers should be cautious in adopting and applying the results reported,follow the CONSORT state-ment in design,registration,implement and reporting of the scheme,fully consider the clinical characteristics of TCM in the treatment of BPH,and reasonably design and report the evaluation indicators.

benign prostatic hyperplasiatraditional Chinese medicinerandomized controlled trialquality evaluation

王任远、唐新越、韩强、曾银、王和天、郭军

展开 >

首都医科大学附属北京中医医院男科,北京 100010

首都医科大学附属北京中医医院肾病科,北京 100010

中国中医科学院西苑医院男科,北京 100091

良性前列腺增生 中医药 随机对照试验 质量评价

国家自然科学基金

81973848

2024

中华男科学杂志
南京军区南京总医院

中华男科学杂志

CSTPCD
影响因子:1.052
ISSN:1009-3591
年,卷(期):2024.30(2)
  • 21