• 디지털융복합연구
• /
• 제13권10호
• /
• pp.549-559
• /
• 2015

이 연구는 국내 한의학 분야에서 발표된 체계적 문헌고찰 논문의 질을 AMSTAR 도구를 이용하여 평가해 봄으로써 최근 한의학계에서도 그 중요성이 강조되고 있는 근거중심대체의학(ECAM; Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine) 연구의 문제점을 확인하고 향후 발전 방향을 모색해 보고자 하였다. DBPIA, OASIS, KISS 데이터베이스를 통해 검색한 한의학 분야의 체계적 문헌고찰 논문(26편)을 두 명의 연구자가 AMSTAR 평가기준에 따라 평가하여 분석하였다. 국내 한의학 관련 체계적 문헌고찰 논문의 질 평가 결과 평균 6.0점이었으며, 전체 26편의 논문 중 높은 수준의 체계적 문헌고찰 논문은 2편(7.7%), 보통수준 21편(80.8%), 낮은 수준은 3편(11.5%)인 것으로 나타났다. 또한 체계적 문헌고찰 연구의 질 평가 점수는 출판연도와의 관련성이 없는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과를 근거로 향후 한의학 분야의 체계적 문헌고찰 논문의 질적 수준이 꾸준히 개선되어야 할 것으로 사료된다. 나아가, 한의학분야의 근거기반실무를 활성화하기 위한 꾸준한 노력은 보건의료분야의 융복합적 접근을 위한 발판 마련에 도움이 될 것이다.

• 척추신경추나의학회지
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.9-21
• /
• 2023

Objectives This study amied to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews(SRs) in the Journal of Chuna Manual Medicine for Spine & Nerves (JCMM). Methods SRs in JCMM from January 2000 to June 2023 were selected using the Research Information Sharing Service(RISS) and JCMM homepage. Two independent researchers reviewed SRs and evaluated their reporting quality using AMSTAR 2. Results A total of 51 SRs were included for assessment. The evaluation revealed 21 studies as having critically low quality, and 30 as having low quality the reporting of items in the studies ranged from a maximum of 81.2% to a minimum of 56.3%. On average, SRs reported 11.1 out of the total 16 items for AMSTAR 2 reporting quality. Conclusions To improve the quality of SRs published in JCMM, it is recommended to conduct SRs based on AMSTAR 2 and adhere to PRISMA 2020 guidelines.

• 대한한방소아과학회지
• /
• 제34권1호
• /
• pp.26-36
• /
• 2020

Objectives The purpose of this study is to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality of systematic reviews from the Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine. Methods Systematic reviews were selected from the Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine (JPKM) by utilizing Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS) and JPKM homepage. Two independent researchers assessed the reporting quality through Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline checklist, and assessed the methodological quality of systematic review through Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool checklist. Results Four systematic reviews were finally selected for the assessment. When assessed by PRISMA, three literatures were little insufficient, and one literature was sufficient. When assessed by AMSTAR 2, three literatures were moderate quality, and one literature was critically low quality. Also, all of the reviews had no information about 'Protocol and registration', 'publication bias', and 'conflicts of interest'. Conclusions Systematic review is important for Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine and Korean Medicine Society. Efforts are needed to improve the reporting and methodological quality of the systematic reviews through PRISMA and AMSTAR 2.

• 한국융합학회논문지
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.161-165
• /
• 2020

재활과학분야에서 메타분석을 이용한 연구가 증가하는 추세이지만 모든 메타분석 논문의 질적 수준이 동일한 것은 아니다. 특히, 메타분석이 가장 상위의 근거수준을 가진 연구방법임에도 불구하고, 개별 연구들 간의 이질성을 고려하지 않고 단순히 대푯값만을 통합할 경우 결과를 왜곡시킬 뿐만 아니라 잘못된 대안을 도출할 가능성이 높다. 본 연구는 2010년 1월부터 2019년 6월까지 우리나라에서 출판된 언어중재를 주제로 한 메타분석 논문을 대상으로 현황을 파악하고, A Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Review(AMSTAR)를 이용하여 방법론적 질을 평가하였다. 검색된 논문 98편 중 최종 5편 논문의 방법론적 질을 평가한 결과 총점 11점 중에서 평균 7.4점이 산출되어 보통 이상의 수준으로 확인되었다. 향후 언어병리학 메타연구의 질적 수준을 높이기 위해서는 출판편향에 대한 검증과 이해상충에 대한 명시를 포함해야 할 것으로 사료된다.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제22권8호
• /
• pp.660-670
• /
• 2022

본 연구는 뇌졸중 환자의 재활 중재에 대한 국내 메타분석 논문의 질을 평가하기 위하여 방법론적 질 평가도구인 AMSTAR-2의 적용하여 분석하였다. 분석된 연구의 질적 수준을 검증하고 근거 중심 실무의 질적 향상과 메타분석 연구를 위한 지침을 제공하고자 한다. 문헌검색은 학술연구정보서비스(Research Information Sharing Service, RISS), 한국 의학 논문 데이터베이스(Korean Medical database, KM base), 한국학술정보(Korean studies Information Service System, KISS)를 이용하였다. 검색을 위해서 주요 핵심어로 '뇌졸중' AND '메타분석'을 주제어로 하여 검색하였다. 최종 18편의 연구 중 AMSTAR-2 질 평가 결과 'Moderate'에 해당하는 연구는 3편(16.67%), 'Low'에 해당하는 연구는 8편(44.44%), 'Critically Low'에 해당하는 연구는 7편(38.89%)으로 나타났다. 향후 연구에서는 과학적이고 객관적인 데이터 선택 및 추출 과정을 수행하고, 문헌의 질적 향상을 위한 방안으로 본 연구에서 분석한 내용을 참고하여 메타분석 연구의 질적 향상을 위한 관심과 노력이 지속되기를 기대한다.

• 대한한방부인과학회지
• /
• 제34권2호
• /
• pp.108-123
• /
• 2021

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the systematic reviews in the Journal of Korean obstetrics and gynecology. Methods: Systematic reviews in the Journal of Korean obstetrics and gynecology were selected from January 1987 to February 2021, by searching Koreanstudies Information Service System (KISS) and the search system of the Society of Korean medicine obstetrics and gynecology. The methodological and reporting quality was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Results: Total of 19 systematic reviews were finally included for this study. The levels of methodological quality were low in 63.2% and very low in 36.8%. As a result of evaluating the reporting quality, 22 to 15 (average 18.6) items out of 27 items (81.5 to 55.6%) were reported. Conclusions: The results of a systematic review are helpful in giving a high level of evidence. In order to improve the quality of systematic reviews published in the Journal of Korean Obstetrics and Gynecology, it is necessary to perform and report according to the the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR 2.

• 한국산학기술학회논문지
• /
• 제17권10호
• /
• pp.158-167
• /
• 2016

본 연구의 목적은 사회복지관련 메타분석 연구를 대상으로 Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 도구를 이용하여 질 평가를 하기 위한 서술적 조사연구이다. '메타분석', '사회복지', '사회사업'을 키워드로하여 2000년부터 2015년에 KISS, DBpia, RISS4U 데이터베이스를 이용하여 출판된 연구 중 42개의 메타분석 연구에 대해 질 평가를 실시하였다. 수집된 자료는 기술통계, 독립집단 t-test, 일원분산분석으로 분석되었다. 평균 AMSTAR 질 평가점수는 $4.76{\pm}1.66$점이었고, 낮은 수준이 19개(45.2%), 중간 수준이 22개(52.4%), 높은 수준이 1개(2.4%)이었다. 질 평가점수는 연구의 특성인 출판년도, 대상자, 분석논문의수, DB의 수, 저널유형, 재정지원 유무, 연구의 질 평가유무, 분석대상논문을 추출흐름도 유무, 주제에 따라 차이가 분석되었다. 질 평가점수는 출판년도, DB의 수, 연구의 질 평가유무, 분석대상논문을 추출흐름도 유무에 따라 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 있었고, 4개 요인이 메타분석 연구의 질에 영향을 미치는 요인으로 51.9%의 설명력이 있었다. 본 연구는 메타분석 연구의 질을 향상시키기 위해 필요한 가이드라인을 제시하는데 기여하고 있다. 본 연구는 사회복지 분야 메타분석 연구의 질 향상과 분석 결과의 신뢰성 확보를 위하여 첫째, 메타분석 보고를 위한 공통적이고 구체적인 가이드라인을 마련하고 공유하는 것, 둘째, 근거기반의 실천적 개입을 위해서는 질 평가를 통해 근거강도가 높은 논문의 결과를 메타분석으로 합성하는 것, 셋째, 분석대상 논문의 연구특성을 제시하는 것, 마지막으로 문헌선택과 자료추출 과정에서 두 명이상의 연구자에 의한 독립적 실시와 최종 문헌추출을 위한 합의과정과 이해상충여부가 보고되어야 함을 제안하고 있다.

• 대한예방한의학회지
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.67-76
• /
• 2019

Objectives : The publication of systematic reviews (SRs) has increased significantly over the years, and systematic reviews are considered to have the strongest evidence as they are at the top of the hierarchy of evidence pyramid. In this study, a thorough assessment of all SRs published in Journal of Society of Preventive Korean Medicine (JSPKM) was performed to evaluate their reporting quality and methodological quality to better improve the quality of SRs in JSPKM. Methods : JSPKM website was searched to include all SRs published in JSPKM from 1997 to 2018. Two independent researchers assessed the SRs using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR, formerly known as Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) tool checklist for methodological quality assessment, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline checklist for reporting quality assessment. Results : Out of 618 published articles published in JSPKM from 1997 to 2018, only 3 SRs were identified as SRs. For AMSTAR methodological quality scoring, the average score of 3 SRs was 3.0 out of 11 which is low quality level. For PRISMA reporting quality items, the 3 SRs reported 17.3 items on average out of 27 items. The 3 identified SRs did not provide information on protocol or registration which is included in both AMSTAR assessment tool and PRISMA guideline. Conclusions : Improvements on reporting quality and methodological quality of SRs using relevant tools or guidelines are needed to assure the quality of SRs published in JSPKM so that their conclusions will be more transparent and reliable for decision-making in healthcare and the best clinical practice.

• 대한간호학회지
• /
• 제44권5호
• /
• pp.459-470
• /
• 2014

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analysis regarding exercise using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) as well as to compare effect size according to outcomes. Methods: Electronic databases including the Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), the National Assembly Library and the DBpia, HAKJISAand RISS4U for the dates 1990 to January 2014 were searched for 'meta-analysis' and 'exercise' in the fields of medical, nursing, physical therapy and physical exercise in Korea. AMSTAR was scored for quality assessment of the 33 articles included in the study. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA and ${\chi}^2$-test. Results: The mean score for AMSTAR evaluations was 4.18 (SD=1.78) and about 67% were classified at the low-quality level and 30% at the moderate-quality level. The scores of quality were statistically different by field of research, number of participants, number of databases, financial support and approval by IRB. The effect size that presented in individual studies were different by type of exercise in the applied intervention. Conclusion: This critical appraisal of meta-analysis published in various field that focused on exercise indicates that a guideline such as the PRISMA checklist should be strongly recommended for optimum reporting of meta-analysis across research fields.

• 대한한의학회지
• /
• 제43권2호
• /
• pp.75-91
• /
• 2022

Objectives: The purpose of this overview was to summarize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for sleep disorders through systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). Methods: An overview of systematic review was conducted according to the study protocol (reviewregistry1320). A comprehensive literature search was performed using three databases (Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science) and three Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, and ScienceON). Final studies were selected by three authors according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data needed for analysis were extracted by a pre-planned extraction framework. Methodological quality of systematic review was assessed using the 'Assessment of multiple systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR2)'. Results: Fourteen SRs and MAs were included, of which eleven SRs were performed MAs. Twelve studies studied insomnia among sleep disorders, and the rest are nightmares and sleep disturbances with PTSD. Ten studies reported the effect of CBT on sleep disorders measured by insomnia severity index (ISI) and sleep onset latency (SOL), and all reported a significant improvement effect. Eight studies reported the effect of CBT on sleep disorders measured by wake time after sleep onset (WASO), and seven studies reported a significant improvement effect. The methodological quality of the studies evaluated with AMSTAR 2 was mainly low or very low because of omission of protocol registration and excluded study list. Conclusions: Practical guidelines and studies show that CBT is effective for sleep disorders, but access to CBT needs to be improved.