meta分析量表模板
Meta分析提取表
资料提取表系统评价标题：文献编号：基本信息表原始研究代码报告代码评价者代码评价日期作者联系方式中英文献引用格式（全部作者，题目，杂志名称、发表年份，卷期页等）方法学特征表随机化序列产生及分配序列隐藏随机对照试验：是□否□半随机对照试验是□否□非随机对照试验是□否□交叉试验是□否□随机分配序列产生方法：随机序列隐藏：是□否□随机序列隐藏方法：半随机分配序列方法：盲法实施对象患者（受试者）：是□否□干预者：是□否□结局评价者：是□否□统计分析者：是□否□判断依据：判断依据：判断依据：判断依据：：失访/脱落/退出（n：失访人数；N：病例数）是否随访：是□随访_ _周；否□；未说明□失访人数：试验组_ _例，失访原因__________ ________ ；对照组 _例，失访原因__ ________________ 脱落/退出：试验组_ _ 例；原因：_ _ ；对照组_ _例。
原因：_ _ ；选择性报告结局是□否□判断依据：意向性分析是□否□判断依据：基线资料是否可比：可比□；不可比□；无法判断□判断依据：其可偏倚是□否□判断依据：参与者特征项目试验组对照组性别（男/女）年龄(Mean±SD) 平均：±岁平均: ±岁被试者来源被试者特征健康人群：是□否□患病人群：是□否□；所患疾病名称：；诊断标准：研究持续时间干预措施人数干预措施描述具体方法描述（干预强度、频率及持续时间等）试验组对照组应急处理结局指标表结局指标定义(诊断方法、量表名称、阈值设定等)评定时间及标准1.TMT(The TrailMaking Test)2.MMSE3.N4004.P3005.记忆能力6.反应时间...结果数据表计量资料（结局指标）治疗组对照组测量时间指标名称单位例数均值标准差例数均值标准差认知能力分数思维能力分数计算能力分数执行能力分数记忆能力分数TMT Part A sTMT Part B s注意集中时间s注意分散次数次平均反应时间s最佳反应时间s手脚交叉运动总时间s正确次数s平均时间s手臂稳定性分数表象旋转s自我效能感x ±s应激性x ±sN40 0 潜伏期ms 波幅uVP30 0 潜伏期ms 波幅uV 反应时SMMSE评分分数ANT评分x ±s生活质量评分x ±s计数资料（结局指标）试验组对照组指标总例数显效有效无效加重总例数显效有效无效加重1.心血管事件2.骨骼肌损伤（如摔倒、扭伤和肌肉拉伤）3.热损伤4.不良事件5....经济学指标（成本）...综合判断纳入标准（符合①②③中任意一项且符合第④⑤项即可纳入）①随机、或半随机对照试验是□否□②对照试验是□否□③交叉研究第一阶段是□否□④对照组空白是□否□⑤采用与治疗组相同的常规基础治疗是□否□排除标准（一项及以上不符合者均排除）①研究对象不是脑卒中后患者是□否□②干预手段未采用有氧运动是□否□③干预手段采用有氧运动合并其他运动是□否□④未设立对照是□否□⑤对照组非空白是□否□⑥对照组采用除基础治疗之外的其他运动干预是□否□⑦结局指标与认知无关是□否□⑧数据不可提取是□否□⑨自身前后试验是□否□其他条件是否符合是□否□判断依据：综合判断是否合格是□否□注：原始研究代码（第一作者的姓和研究发表年份组成）评价者代码：资料提取者的姓名或代码评价日期：填写该表格的时间文献引用：刊登该文的全部作者，题目，杂志名称、发表年份，卷期页等。
常用的meta分析文献质量评价量表：AMSTAR Checklist for 系统综述质量评价
AMSTAR ChecklistArticle Name:1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?For Yes: Optional (recommended)PopulationTimeframe for follow upYesNo InterventionComparator groupOutcome2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?For Partial Yes:The authors state that they had awritten protocol or guide thatincluded ALL the following:For Yes:As for partial yes, plus the protocolshould be registered and should alsohave specified:review question(s)a meta-analysis/synthesisplan, if appropriate, andYesPartialYesNoa search strategy a plan for investigating causesof heterogeneityinclusion/exclusion criteria a plan for investigating causesof heterogeneitya risk of bias assessment3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?For Yes, the review should satisfy ONE of the following:Explanation for including only RCTs YesOR Explanation for including only NRSINoOR Explanation for including both RCTs and NRSI4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? For Partial Yes (all the following): For Yes, should also have (all the following):searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question) searched the reference lists / bibliographies of included studies YesPartialYesNoprovided key word and/or search strategy searched trial/study registriesjustified publication restrictions (e.g. language) included/consulted content experts in the fieldwhere relevant, searched for grey literatureconducted search within 24 months of completion of the review5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? For Yes, either ONE of the following:at least two reviewers independently agreed on selection of eligible studies and achieved consensus on which studies to includeYesNoOR two reviewers selected a sample of eligible studies and achieved good agreement (at least 80 percent), with the remainder selected by one reviewer.6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? For Yes, either ONE of the following:at least two reviewers achieved consensus on which data to extract from included studiesYesNoOR two reviewers extracted data from a sample of eligible studiesand achieved good agreement (at least 80 percent), with the remainder extracted by one reviewer.7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? For Partial Yes:For Yes, must also have:provided a list of all potentially relevant studies that were read in full-text form butexcluded from the reviewJustified the exclusion from thereview of each potentially relevant studyYes Partial Yes No8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?For Partial Yes (ALL thefollowing): For Yes, should also have ALL the following:described populations described populationin detail YesPartial YesNodescribed interventionsdescribed intervention in detail (including doses where relevant)described comparatorsdescribed comparatorin detail(including doses where relevant)described outcomesdescribed study’s setting described research designstimeframe for follow-up9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? RCTsFor Partial Yes, must have assessed RoB fromFor Yes, must also have assessed RoB from:unconcealed allocation, andallocation sequence that wasnot truly random, andYesPartial YesNolack of blinding of patients and assessors when assessing selection of the reported result from among multipleoutcomes (unnecessary for objective outcomes such as all-cause mortality) measurements or analyses of aspecified outcome Includes only NRSI NRSIFor Partial Yes, must have assessed RoB:For Yes, must also have assessed RoB:from confounding, andmethods used to ascertainexposures and outcomes, and YesPartial YesNoIncludesonly RCTsfrom selection biasselection of the reported result from among multiple measurements or analyses of a specified outcome10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? For YesMust have reported on the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. Note: Reporting that the reviewers looked for this information but it was not reported by study authors also qualifiesYes No11. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?RCTs For Yes:The authors justified combining the data in a meta-analysis YesNo Nometa-analysis conducted AND they used an appropriate weighted technique to combine study results and adjusted for heterogeneity if present.AND investigated the causes of any heterogeneity For NRSI For Yes:The authors justified combining the data in a meta-analysisYes NoNometa-analysisconducted AND they used an appropriate weighted technique to combine study results, adjusting for heterogeneity if presentAND they statistically combinedeffect estimates from NRSI that were adjusted for confounding, rather than combining raw data, or justified combining raw data when adjusted effect estimates were not available AND they reported separate summary estimates for RCTs and NRSI separately when both were included in the review12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assessthe potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?For Yes:included only low risk of bias RCTsYesNoNo meta-analysis conductedOR, if the pooled estimate was based on RCTs and/or NRSI at variableRoB, the authors performed analyses to investigate possible impact of RoBon summary estimates of effect.13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individualstudies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review?For Yes:included only low risk of bias RCTsYes NoOR, if RCTs with moderate or high RoB, or NRSI were included the review provided a discussion of the likely impact of RoB on the results14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?For Yes:There was no significant heterogeneity in the resultsYes NoOR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed aninvestigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? For Yes:performed graphical or statistical tests for publication bias anddiscussed the likelihood and magnitude of impact of publication biasYes No Nometa-analysis conducted16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? For Yes:The authors reported no competing interests ORYesNoThe authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interestTo cite this tool: Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, Henry DA. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008.。
meta分析数据提取表格
竭诚为您提供优质文档/双击可除meta分析数据提取表格篇一：meta分析资料提取表资料提取表系统评价标题：文献编号：注：原始研究代码（第一作者的姓和研究发表年份组成）评价者代码：资料提取者的姓名或代码评价日期：填写该表格的时间文献引用：刊登该文的全部作者，题目，杂志名称、发表年份，卷期页等篇二：meta分析步骤(1)明确简洁地提出需要解决的问题。
(2)制定检索策略，全面广泛地收集随机对照试验。
(3)确定纳入和排除标准，剔除不符合要求的文献。
(4)资料选择和提取。
(5)各试验的质量评估和特征描述。
(6)统计学处理。
a．异质性检验（齐性检验）。
b．统计合并效应量（加权合并，计算效应尺度及95％的置信区间）并进行统计推断。
c．图示单个试验的结果和合并后的结果。
d．敏感性分析。
e．通过“失安全数”的计算或采用“倒漏斗图”了解潜在的发表偏倚。
(7)结果解释、作出结论及评价。
(8)维护和更新资料。
提高国内随机对照试验meta-分析的质量何成奇，赵晓玲（四川大学华西医院康复中心，四川省成都市610041）[摘要]高质量的随机对照试验（Rct）的meta-分析结果与国际公认的大样本Rct结果一起被各国列为最高等级的证据，可为临床实践和卫生决策提供更真实的科学依据，引导临床医师在实践中做出正确的决策。
但质量差的meta-分析反而可能导致错误的结论。
国外meta-分析方法的应用已趋于成熟和规范。
然而目前国内由于应用时间不长，且缺乏统一规范的实施标准，文献质量参差不齐，很多方面还存在着较为严重的缺陷。
探讨如何提高国内Rctmeta-分析的质量，尽快与国际接轨，以便为循证医学、药学提供更科学真实的证据。
以进行Rctmeta-分析的步骤为线索，对国内meta-分析存在的问题和解决的办法进行了综述。
具体内容包括：提出一个好问题（研究目的），全面收集相关的Rct，制定严格的纳入/排除标准，正确提取数据资料，对符合纳入标准的Rct进行质量评价，应用正确的统计方法，必须进行敏感性分析，根据结果做出正确、全面的结论。
meta分析数据提取表格
竭诚为您提供优质文档/双击可除meta分析数据提取表格篇一：meta分析资料提取表资料提取表系统评价标题：文献编号：注：原始研究代码（第一作者的姓和研究发表年份组成）评价者代码：资料提取者的姓名或代码评价日期：填写该表格的时间文献引用：刊登该文的全部作者，题目，杂志名称、发表年份，卷期页等篇二：meta分析步骤(1)明确简洁地提出需要解决的问题。
(2)制定检索策略，全面广泛地收集随机对照试验。
(3)确定纳入和排除标准，剔除不符合要求的文献。
(4)资料选择和提取。
(5)各试验的质量评估和特征描述。
(6)统计学处理。
a．异质性检验（齐性检验）。
b．统计合并效应量（加权合并，计算效应尺度及95％的置信区间）并进行统计推断。
c．图示单个试验的结果和合并后的结果。
d．敏感性分析。
e．通过“失安全数”的计算或采用“倒漏斗图”了解潜在的发表偏倚。
(7)结果解释、作出结论及评价。
(8)维护和更新资料。
提高国内随机对照试验meta-分析的质量何成奇，赵晓玲（四川大学华西医院康复中心，四川省成都市610041）[摘要]高质量的随机对照试验（Rct）的meta-分析结果与国际公认的大样本Rct结果一起被各国列为最高等级的证据，可为临床实践和卫生决策提供更真实的科学依据，引导临床医师在实践中做出正确的决策。
但质量差的meta-分析反而可能导致错误的结论。
国外meta-分析方法的应用已趋于成熟和规范。
然而目前国内由于应用时间不长，且缺乏统一规范的实施标准，文献质量参差不齐，很多方面还存在着较为严重的缺陷。
探讨如何提高国内Rctmeta-分析的质量，尽快与国际接轨，以便为循证医学、药学提供更科学真实的证据。
以进行Rctmeta-分析的步骤为线索，对国内meta-分析存在的问题和解决的办法进行了综述。
具体内容包括：提出一个好问题（研究目的），全面收集相关的Rct，制定严格的纳入/排除标准，正确提取数据资料，对符合纳入标准的Rct进行质量评价，应用正确的统计方法，必须进行敏感性分析，根据结果做出正确、全面的结论。
meta分析统计学
结果的真实性、可靠性和科学性，尤其 当多个研究的结果不一致时，让人容易 产生困惑或误解。
实用文档
Meta分析的统计目的
对多个同类独立研究的结果进行汇 总和合并分析，以达到增大样本含 量，提高检验效能的目的，尤其是 当多个研究结果不一致或都没有统 计学意义时，采用Meta分析可得到 更加接近真实情况的统计分析结果。
A Systematic Review
实用文档
系统评价的方法步骤
Evidence-Based Guide to Community Preventive Services. 根据指南，系统评价步骤如下：
1.成立评价组（由多个学科小组组成） （1）保证个小组框架的有效性、全面性； （2）有足够的知识、经验保证最后选定的干预的
实用文档
系统评价
实用文档
第一节 概 述
一、定义 系统评价是针对某一具体的临床问题系统全面地
收集全世界所有已发表或末发表的相关的临床研究 文章，用统一的科学评价标准，筛选出符合标准、 质量好的文献，用定性或定量的方法进行综合，去 粗取精，去伪存真，得出可靠的结论。同时，随着 新的临床研究结果的出现及时更新。
44
3.99
0.56
合 计 491
适氟区
n2
X2
s2
42
2.33
0.33
40
2.49
0.32
50
2.67
0.35
50
2.90
0.45
45
2.93
0.36
55
3.27
0.37
42
3.48
0.48
51
3.73
用症状自评量表评估中国大学生心理健康状况的Meta分析
用症状自评量表（SCL-9 0 ）评估中国大学生心理健康状况的Meta分析（?1广东工业大学心理学教学研究所，广州510006 ?2 广东白云学院心理健康辅导中心，广州510450? 通信作者Email:hyp0911126 ）Meta分析（Meta analysis ）又称荟萃分析、整合分析、汇总分析等，Glass :5］首次提出并使用，主要是对已有的研究结果进行综合量化分析，它可以对具有不一致结论的研究进行整合，得出一个所有研究的共同效应。
现今该方法已经在社会科学、医学领域得到了普遍的应用，但在心理学领域中使用还为数不多，本研究拟对搜集到的大学生心理健康状况研究进行Meta分析，以期发现大学生心理健康的真实状况，为大学生心理健康教育工作提供科学的根据。
?1对象与方法?1.1文献检索? 在中国期刊网的中国期刊全文数据库和中国优秀博硕士论文数据库（CDMD以及维普数据中以“ SCL为检索词，共搜索到1979~2008年29年间的研究成果764篇（检索截至时间为2008 年4 月25 日），以“大学”或“大学生”或“高校”等为检索词进行二次检索，得到有关文献345篇；再以“心理健康”进行一级检索，然后以“大学”“大学生”“高校”等进行二级检索，检索到文献532篇，排除重复文献后共搜索到文献381 篇，对已查得文献进行文献追溯和手工检索，得到文献7 篇，共388 篇。
?1.2文献剔除?文献纳入标准：①调查对象为在校大学生；②调查工具为SCL-90;③报告了这个群体总的完整的SCL-90因子分数与标准差。
文献排除标准：①贫困大学生、独生子女、网瘾大学生等特殊群体大学生调查结果；②资料不完整，如没有被试数量，没有交代标准差等；③一批数据多篇论文或者重复发表的论文；④有明显错误而导致结果不可信的文献。
最后检索到1979~2008年间符合标准文献共214 篇，232 个样本，文献中样本容量最少的为30 个，样本最大为12357 人，包括华北、东北、华东、中南、西南、西北24 个省市共263775 个大学生被试。
常用的meta分析文献质量评价量表：SQUIRE-2.0-checklist---卫生经济学
Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0)Table 2. Glossary of key terms used in SQUIRE 2.0. This Glossary provides the intended meaning of selected words and phrases as they are used in the SQUIRE 2.0 Guidelines. They may, and often do, have different meanings in other disciplines, situations, and settings. AssumptionsReasons for choosing the activities and tools used to bring about changes in healthcare services at the system level.ContextPhysical and sociocultural makeup of the local environment (for example, external environmental factors, organizational dynamics, collaboration, resources, leadership, and the like), and the interpretation of these factors (“sense-making”) by the healthcare delivery professionals, patients, and caregivers that can affect the effectiveness and generalizability of intervention(s).Ethical aspectsThe value of system-level initiatives relative to their potential for harm, burden, and cost to the stakeholders. Potential harms particularly associated with efforts to improve the quality, safety, and value of healthcare services include opportunity costs, invasion of privacy, and staff distress resulting from disclosure of poor performance.GeneralizabilityThe likelihood that the intervention(s)in a particular report would produce similar results in other settings, situations, or environments (also referred to as external validity).Healthcare improvementAny systematic effort intended to raise the quality, safety, and value of healthcare services, usually done at the system level. We encourage the use of this phrase rather than “quality improvement,” which often refers to more narrowly defined approaches.InferencesThe meaning of findings or data, as interpreted by the stakeholders in healthcare services –improvers, healthcare delivery professionals, and/or patients and familiesInitiativeA broad term that can refer to organization-wide programs, narrowly focused projects, or the details of specific interventions (for example, planning, execution, and assessment)Internal validityDemonstrable, credible evidence for efficacy (meaningful impact or change) resulting from introduction of a specific intervention into a particular healthcare system.Intervention(s)The specific activities and tools introduced into a healthcare system with the aim of changing its performance for the better. Complete description of an intervention includes its inputs, internal activities, and outputs (in the form of a logic model, for example), and the mechanism(s) by which these components are expected to produce changes in a system’s performance.Opportunity costsLoss of the ability to perform other tasks or meet other responsibilities resulting from the diversion of resources needed to introduce, test, or sustain a particular improvement initiativeProblemMeaningful disruption, failure, inadequacy, distress, confusion or other dysfunction in a healthcare service delivery system that adversely affects patients, staff, or the system as a whole, or that prevents care from reaching its full potentialProcessThe routines and other activities through which healthcare services are deliveredRationaleExplanation of why particular intervention(s)were chosen and why it was expected to work, be sustainable, and be replicable elsewhere.SystemsThe interrelated structures, people, processes, and activities that together create healthcare services for and with individual patients and populations. For example, systems exist from the personal self-care system of a patient, to the individual provider-patient dyad system, to the microsystem, to the macrosystem, and all the way to the market/social/insurance system. These levels are nested within each other.Theory or theoriesAny “reason-giving” account that asserts causal relationships between variables (causal theory) or that makes sense of an otherwise obscure process or situation (explanatory theory). Theories come in many forms, and serve different purposes in the phases of improvement work. It is important to be explicit and well-founded about any informal and formal theory (or theories) that are used.。
meta分析结构式模板prisma
meta分析结构式模板prisma举行上一次FS线上沙龙的时候，有不少小伙伴问有没有meta学习的简易资料，应大家的要求，这次猴哥发一个meta分析的八股文结构模板~prisma 说明与描述条目一：标题条目二：结构式摘要条目三：理论基础条目四：目的条目五：方案和注册条目六：合格标准条目七：信息来源条目八：检索条目九：研究选择条目十：资料提取条目十一：资料条目条目十二：单个研究存在的偏倚条目十三：概括效应指标条目十四：综合的分析方法条目十五：研究偏倚条目十六：其他方法条目十七：研究选择条目十八：特征研究条目十九：研究内部偏倚条目二十：单个研究的结果条目二十一：结果的综合条目二十二：研究间的偏倚条目二十三：附加分析条目二十四：证据总结条目二十五：局限性条目二十六：结论条目二十七：资金今天就写到这里，请大家多多批评指正~（图片不够高清？发送 sunmeta1 到后台，获得ppt全文）META专栏主编猴哥：Freescience公众号meta分析栏目现任主编。
副主任医师，武汉大学肿瘤学博士，专注于胃肠道肿瘤分子生物学机制、系统评价/Meta分析、数据挖掘、临床统计研究。
科研路，不孤单！Freescience医学科研联盟全国火热招募ing50家高校及医院的小伙伴已经加入啦具体点这里想围观一篇SCI论文是怎样写成的吗？Freescience线上沙龙之SCI论文合作呼唤你具体点这里FS科研软件库，集合50+医学科研必备神器，现在统统打包分享，点这里还有freescience科研交流群。