基于PRISMA声明的我国运动干预类元分析报告质量评价

Quality Evaluation of China's Sports Intervention Meta-analysis Report Based on PRISMA Statement

Received:November 10, 2019

DOI：10.12064/ssr.20200111

英文关键词:sports intervention systematic review meta-analysis Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

基金项目:上海市哲学社会科学规划教育学一般项目（A1904）；上海市体育科技“雏鹰计划”项目（19C005）

Author Name	Affiliation	E-mail
LI Bo	School of Physical Education and Training, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai 200438, China	wangqiulibo@163.com
ZHANG Danqing	School of Physical Education and Training, Shanghai University of Sport
WANG Xueqiang	School of Kinesiology, Shanghai University of Sport
HAN Shanshan	Shangqiu University
KE Youzhi	School of Physical Education and Training, Shanghai University of Sport
LIU Yang	School of Physical Education and Training, Shanghai University of Sport；Shanghai Research Center for Physical Fitness and Health of Children and Adolescents	docliuyang@hotmail.com

Hits: 3711

Download times: 3612

中文摘要:

目的：评价我国运动干预类元分析研究的报告质量，并分析其影响因素。方法：应用PRISMA声明中“系统评价和元分析优先报告清单”作为评估指标，评估近十年CSSCI和CSCD收录的运动干预类元分析报告质量。结果：共纳入文献68篇，运动干预类研究数量呈现逐年上升趋势。纳入论文均有不同程度的报告缺陷，主要存在标题不规范、不符合结构式摘要的要求、前言部分未报告前人的研究成果、方法学部分未报告研究方案与注册信息、研究结果不完整等问题。高、中、低质量的论文分别占22.1%、45.5%、32.4%，CSCD论文的报告质量优于CSSCI论文（t=-0.498，P=0.02）。结论：运动干预类元分析报告规范性较差，报告质量中低水平较多。“运动干预方案和注册体系的不完善”以及“元分析报告范式的随意性”是制约元分析报告质量的重要因素。

英文摘要:

Objective: To evaluate the quality of the report on sports intervention meta-analysis in China and analyze its influencing factors. Methods: This study used the "Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Priority Report List" assessment tool in the PRISMA statement to assess the quality of sports intervention meta-analytic reports included in CSSCI and CSCD over the past decade. Results: A total of 68 articles were included in the literature, and the number of sports intervention studies show an increasing trend year by year. There are different levels of information defects in the literature, mainly including non-standard titles, non-compliance with the requirements of the structured abstract, excluding the previous research results in the introductory part, lacking the research plan and registration information in the methodological part, incomplete research results and so on. Papers of high, medium and low report quality account for 22.1%, 45.5%, and 32.4%, respectively. The report quality of CSCD papers is better than that of CSSCI papers (t=-0.498, P=0.02). Conclusion: The sports intervention meta-analysis reports are less standardized, and there are more medium- and low-level reports. "The imperfect sports intervention program and registration system" and "the random meta-analysis report paradigm" are important factors that constrain the quality of the meta-analysis report.

View Full Text View/Add Comment Download PDF reader