%0 Journal Article
%T 公共卫生硕士学位论文中系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告质量评价
%A 李蓓蓓　赵文科　孙霄　代双阳　张晋高　周静　周晓彬
%J -
%D 2020
%R 10.13362/j.jpmed.202001020
%X 摘要 目的　评价国内公共卫生硕士系统评价与Meta分析类学位论文的报告质量和方法学质量，为提高公共卫生硕士培养质量提供依据。 方法　采用评价工具PRISMA清单和AMSTAR量表对国内公共卫生硕士系统评价与Meta分析类学位论文的报告质量和方法学质量进行评价。 结果　纳入论文的PRISMA清单得分为（22.08±2.54）分，仅做系统评价或Meta分析的学位论文PRISMA得分高于既做系统评价又做Meta分析的学位论文（t=3.40，P＜0.05），纳入的学位论文中原始研究为随机对照试验的PRISMA得分高于原始研究为非随机对照试验的学位论文（t=－2.11,P＜0.05）；PRISMA清单中有18个条目的报告率超过了80%。所有纳入论文的AMSTAR量表得分为（6.79±1.51）分，有基金支持的学位论文AMSTAR得分高于无基金支持的论文（t=－2.19,P＜0.05）；AMSTAR量表中仅有4个条目的报告率超过80%。 结论　我国公共卫生硕士系统评价与Meta分析类学位论文的报告质量较高，方法学质量中等，仍存在不同程度的缺陷，还需要改进和提升。<br>Abstract：Objective　To investigate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses in dissertations for Master of Public Health (MPH) in China, and to provide a basis for improving the education quality of MPH. Methods　The PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool were used to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses in the dissertations for MPH. Results　The mean PRISMA score of included dissertations was 22.08±2.54, and the dissertations with systematic reviews or Meta-analyses alone had a significantly higher PRISMA score than those with both systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (t=3.40,P<0.05); the included dissertations with randomized controlled trials as original studies had a significantly higher PRISMA score than those with non-randomized controlled trials as original studies (t=-2.11,P<0.05); a total of 18 items in the PRISMA checklist had a reporting rate of >80%. The mean AMSTAR score of included dissertations was 6.79±1.51, and the dissertations with funding support had a significantly higher AMSTAR score than those without funding support (t=-2.19,P<0.05); only 4 items in the AMSTAR tool had a reporting rate of >80%. Conclusion　MPH dissertations with systematic reviews and Meta-analyses in China have a high level of reporting quality and a medium level of methodological quality. There are still some defects in the methodological and reporting quality that need to be improved
%K 学位论文
%K 公共卫生
%K 教育
%K 研究生
%K 系统评价
%K Meta分析
%K 循证医学
%K 质量控制<br>Academic dissertations
%K Public health
%K Education
%K graduate
%K Systematic reviews
%K Meta-analyses
%K Evidence-based medicine
%K Quality control
%U http://jpmed.qdu.edu.cn/CN/10.13362/j.jpmed.202001020