| 倪 明,王琳辉,李广涛,等.基于AGREE-China对中文乳腺癌诊治相关指南/共识的质量评估[J].中国肿瘤,2022,31(10):828-838. |
| 基于AGREE-China对中文乳腺癌诊治相关指南/共识的质量评估 |
| Evaluation of Guidelines and Consensuses Related to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer： Based on the AGREE-China |
| 投稿时间：2022-06-30 |
| DOI：10.11735/j.issn.1004-0242.2022.09.A011 |
|
 |
| 中文关键词: AGREE-China 医学指南/共识 质量评价 乳腺癌 中文论文 |
| 英文关键词:AGREE-China medical guideline and consensus quality evaluation breast cancer Chinese paper |
| 基金项目:中国高校科技期刊研究会2021年医学期刊专项基金(CUJS-YX-2021-1-4)；上海市科技期刊学会青年编辑“腾飞”项目（2020A04） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 583 |
| 全文下载次数: 143 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 摘 要：［目的］ 评估中文乳腺癌诊治相关指南/共识类论文的质量，并基于评价结果提出编辑决策。［方法］ 通过知网、万方、维普三大中文数据库检索2019—2020年间发表的中文乳腺癌诊治相关指南/共识类论文，并采用AGREE-China质量评价工具对上述论文进行质量评价，同时向乳腺癌领域专家发放问卷，对上述论文进行质量评价。采用SPSS22.0对数据结果进行统计处理，AGREE-China评分结果采用区组设计方差分析，计量资料采用t检验或Spearman相关分析。［结果］ 经遴选后，共23篇中文乳腺癌诊治相关指南/共识类论文纳入到本研究，总体有较高的被引频次（52.2%的论文被引超过10次）和下载次数（65.2%的论文下载超过500次）。然而AGREE-China总体得分不高（平均21.7分，5.5～70.3分，满分100分），论文获得推荐情况较弱。而乳腺癌领域专家评价结果显示，该类论文获得乳腺癌领域专家的认可度较高（平均8.0分，7.0～9.4分，满分10分）。统计分析显示：AGREE-China总分、被引频次、下载次数和专家评分之间呈正相关；AGREE-China总分、专家评分、被引频次和下载次数与指南/共识作者类型和所发表的期刊类型均无关；定期更新的医学指南/共识类论文相比未更新者有较高的被引频次、下载次数和专家评分（P<0.05），但在AGREE-China总分方面差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。［结论］ 中文乳腺癌诊治相关指南/共识制定和发表时未有效参考方法学内容，AGREE-China评价得分较低，但仍然受到该领域学者的认可。期刊编辑应该加强医学指南/共识制定和发表的知识学习和储备，发挥主观能动性，尽可能参与到医学指南/共识的制定过程中，进一步提升中文医学指南/共识类论文的整体质量。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Abstract：［Purpose］ To evaluate the quality of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment related Chinese guideline/consensus papers， and to make editorial decisions based on the evaluations. ［Methods］ Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment related Chinese guideline/consensus papers were searched from the databases of CNKI， WANFANG and Chongqing VIP. The quality of the papers was evaluated both by AGREE-China evaluation tool and by questionnaire for experts of breast cancer. SPSS 22.0 was used for statistical analysis. The results of AGREE-China evaluation were analyzed by block-designed variance. Measurement data were analyzed by t test or Spearman correlation test. ［Results］ A total of 23 papers of Chinese guidelines and consensuses were collected， which had higher cited frequency(52.2% of the papers were cited more than 10 times) and more downloads(65.2% of the papers were downloaded more than 500 times). The total scores of AGREE-China evaluation were poor (average score 21.7， range 5.5～70.3， full 100）， and the papers were also poorly recommended. The scores evaluated by experts of breast cancer were high(average score 8.0， range 7.0～9.4， full 10). The total scores of AGREE-China were positively correlated with cited frequency， download number and scores evaluated by experts; while there was no correlation between author or journal type with the total scores of AGREE-China， cited frequency， download number， scores evaluated by experts. The papers which regularly updated had higher cited frequency， download number， score evaluated by experts（P<0.05）， but not for score of AGREE-China（P>0.05）. ［Conclusion］ Although the methodological content of guidelines and consensuses papers of the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer was poor when they were formulated and published， and had low score evaluated by AGREE-China， they were still approved by scholars in this field. The medical editors should learn more about the knowledge of publishing guidelines and consensuses， make more subjective initiative， and fully participate in the development process of guidelines and consensuses. These can improve the overall quality of Chinese guidelines and consensuses. |
|
在线阅读
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |