Page 19 - 《中国药房》2025年19期

[127] SCHULZ K F. Empirical evidence of bias：dimensions of [140] WHITING P，SAVOVIĆ J，HIGGINS J P T，et al. ROBIS：
methodological quality associated with estimates of treat‐ a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was
ment effects in controlled trials[J]. Jama，1995，273 developed[J]. J Clin Epidemiol，2016，69：225-234.
（5）：408. [141] VLAYEN J，AERTGEERTS B，HANNES K，et al. A
[128] HARTLING L，OSPINA M，LIANG Y Y，et al. Risk of systematic review of appraisal tools for clinical practice
bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled guidelines：multiple similarities and one common deficit
trials：cross sectional study[J]. BMJ，2009，339：b4012. [J]. Int J Qual Health Care，2005，17（3）：235-242.
[129] SLIM K，NINI E，FORESTIER D，et al. Methodological [142] CATTANI A，TEIXEIRA P P，DA CONCEIÇÃO ECKERT
index for non-randomized studies （minors）：development I，et al. Quality appraisal of clinical nutrition practice
and validation of a new instrument[J]. ANZ J Surg，2003， guidelines for critically ill adult patients：a systematic
73（9）：712-716. review using the advancing guideline development，repor-
[130] STERNE J A，HERNÁN M A，REEVES B C，et al. ting and evaluation in health care instrument Ⅱ （AGREE-
ROBINS-Ⅰ：a tool for assessing risk of bias in non- Ⅱ） and AGREE-recommendation excellence （AGREE-
randomised studies of interventions[J]. BMJ，2016，355： REX）[J]. Br J Nutr，2023，129（1）：66-76.
i4919. [143] HAILEY D. Toward transparency in health technology
[131] WELLS G，SHEA B，O’CONNELL D，et al. The New- assessment：a checklist for HTA reports[J]. Int J Technol
castle-Ottawa Scale （NOS） for assessing the quality of Assess Health Care，2003，19（1）：1-7.
nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses[EB/OL]. [2025- [144] Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP（case control
07-13].http：//www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemio- study）checklist[EB/OL].（2019-01-01）[2025-07-14].https：//
logy/oxford.asp. casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/.
[132] STANG A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa [145] COLES B，TYRER F，HUSSEIN H，et al. Development，
scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized content validation，and reliability of the assessment of real-
studies in meta-analyses[J]. Eur J Epidemiol，2010，25 world observational studies （ArRoWS） critical appraisal
（9）：603-605. tool[J]. Ann Epidemiol，2021，55：57-63.e15.
[133] DOWNES M J，BRENNAN M L，WILLIAMS H C，et al. [146] ZHANG J，WANG Y Y，WENG H，et al. Management of
Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the qua- non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer：quality of clinical
lity of cross-sectional studies （AXIS）[J]. BMJ Open， practice guidelines and variations in recommendations[J].
2016，6（12）：e011458. BMC Cancer，2019，19（1）：1054.
[134] DRUMMOND M F. Users’ guides to the medical litera‐ [147] HOOIJMANS C R，ROVERS M M，DE VRIES R B M，
ture：Ⅹ Ⅲ：how to use an article on economic analysis of et al. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies[J].
clinical practice A：are the results of the study valid?[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol，2014，14：43.
Jama，1997，277（19）：1552. [148] LI B H，YU Z J，WANG C Y，et al. A preliminary，multi‐
[135] VARDELL E，MALLOY M. Joanna briggs institute：an center，prospective and real world study on the hemosta‐
evidence-based practice database[J]. Med Ref Serv Q， sis，coagulation，and safety of Hemocoagulase Bothrops
2013，32（4）：434-442. Atrox in patients undergoing transurethral bipolar plas‐
[136] HANNES K，LOCKWOOD C. Pragmatism as the philo‐ makinetic prostatectomy[J]. Front Pharmacol，2019，10：
sophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta- 1426.
aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis[J]. [149] MOONS K G M，WOLFF R F，RILEY R D，et al.
J Adv Nurs，2011，67（7）：1632-1642. PROBAST：a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability
[137] SACKS H S，BERRIER J，REITMAN D，et al. Meta- of prediction model studies：explanation and elaboration
analyses of randomized controlled trials[J]. N Engl J Med， [J]. Ann Intern Med，2019，170（1）：W1-W33.
1987，316（8）：450-455. [150] GOLD C，ERKKILÄ J，CRAWFORD M J. Shifting
[138] SHEA B J，GRIMSHAW J M，WELLS G A，et al. Deve- effects in randomised controlled trials of complex inter‐
lopment of AMSTAR：a measurement tool to assess the ventions：a new kind of performance bias?[J]. Acta Psy-
methodological quality of systematic reviews[J]. BMC chiatr Scand，2012，126（5）：307-314.
Med Res Methodol，2007，7：10. [151] 石秀园，赵锐，李璠，等. 构建我国药品临床综合评价工
[139] SHEA B J，REEVES B C，WELLS G，et al. AMSTAR 2：a 作机制的思考[J]. 中国药房，2020，31（23）：2828-2833.
critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include （收稿日期：2025-07-30 修回日期：2025-09-08）
randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare inter‐ （编辑：刘明伟）
ventions，or both[J]. BMJ，2017，358：j4008.

中国药房 2025年第36卷第19期 China Pharmacy 2025 Vol. 36 No. 19 · 2365 ·