某非随机干预性研究偏倚风险评估工具及使用方法的解读

doi:10.3761/j.issn.1672-9234.2021.02.019

中华护理教育 ›› 2021, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (2): 187-192.doi: 10.3761/j.issn.1672-9234.2021.02.019

• 探索与争鸣 • 上一篇

某非随机干预性研究偏倚风险评估工具及使用方法的解读

马佩芬(),李玲玲,豆欣蔓()

730000 兰州市兰州大学护理学院循证护理中心（马佩芬,豆欣蔓）;兰州大学第二医院急危重症三病区（李玲玲）

收稿日期:2020-07-21 出版日期:2021-02-20 发布日期:2021-02-07
通讯作者: 豆欣蔓
作者简介:马佩芬:女,硕士,副主任护师,E-mail: sherry_bb@163.com

The interpretation and its use method of a tool of risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions

MA Pei-fen(),LI Ling-ling,DOU Xin-man()

Received:2020-07-21 Online:2021-02-20 Published:2021-02-07
Contact: Xin-man DOU

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着循证护理学的不断发展及非随机干预性护理研究的广泛应用,护理科研工作者需要在试验设计及证据采纳过程中对试验项目的偏倚风险及整体质量作出评价以提高证据的质量。ROBINS-I（Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions）是目前值得推荐的非随机干预性研究偏倚风险评估工具,该文逐条解释ROBINS-I的评估条目,并用该工具评估2篇非随机干预性护理研究的偏倚风险,以帮助护理科研工作者在设计和实施非随机干预研究时正确使用该工具,以期提高护理研究质量,增加结果的可靠性。

关键词: 干预性研究, 偏倚（流行病学）, 非随机干预性研究偏倚风险评估

Abstract:

With the development of evidence-based nursing and the wide application of non-randomized interventional studies,nursing researchers need to evaluate the risk of bias and overall quality of the research to improve the quality of evidence. Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions（ROBINS-I）is a recommended bias risk assessment tool for non-randomized interventional studies. This article explains the ROBINS-I item by item and demonstratively evaluates the bias risk of two non-randomized studies of nursing intervention to help nursing researchers correctly use the tool and improve the quality of nursing research.

Key words: Intervention Studies, Bias（Epidemiology）, Risk of bias in non-randomized studies-of interventions

马佩芬,李玲玲,豆欣蔓. 某非随机干预性研究偏倚风险评估工具及使用方法的解读[J]. 中华护理教育, 2021, 18(2): 187-192.

MA Pei-fen,LI Ling-ling,DOU Xin-man. The interpretation and its use method of a tool of risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions[J]. Chinese Journal of Nursing Education, 2021, 18(2): 187-192.

图/表 4

参考文献 11

[1]	吴琼芳, 丁泓帆, 邓围, 等. ROBIS:评估系统评价偏倚风险的新工具[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2015,15(12):1454-1457.
	Wu QF, Ding HF, Deng W, et al. ROBIS:a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews[J]. Chin J Evid-Based Med, 2015,15(12):1454-1457.
[2]	Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I:a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions[J]. BMJ, 2016:i4919.
[3]	Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials[J]. BMJ, 2011,343. pmid: 22194406
[4]	Whiting PF. QUADAS-2:a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies[J]. Ann Intern Med, 2011,155(8):529. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 pmid: 22007046
[5]	曾宪涛, 包翠萍, 曹世义, 等. Meta分析系列之三:随机对照试验的质量评价工具[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2012,4(3):183-185.
	Zeng XT, Bao CP, Cao SY, et al. Meta-analysis series III:quali-ty assessment tools for randomized controlled trials[J]. Chin J Evid Based Cardiovasc Med, 2012,4(3):183-185.
[6]	王浩, 唐晓宇, 王和平, 等. ROBINS-I:评估非随机干预性研究偏倚风险的新工具[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2018,10(7):789-793.
	Wang H, Tang XY, Wang HP, et al. ROBINS-I:a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in non-randomized intervention studies[J]. Chin J Evid Based Cardiovasc Med, 2018,10(7):789-793.
[7]	Iqbal F, Askari A, Adaba F, et al. Factors associated with efficacy of nurse-led bowel training of patients with chronic con-stipation[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2015,13(10):1785-1792. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.05.037 pmid: 26051391
[8]	Lee HE, Cho SY, Lee S, et al. Short-term effects of a systematized bladder training program for idiopathic overactive bladder:a prospective study[J]. Int Neurourol J, 2013,17(1):11-17. doi: 10.5213/inj.2013.17.1.11 pmid: 23610706
[9]	Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Reaves BC. A Cochrane Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool:for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions（ACROBAT-NRSI）,Version1.0.0,24,September2014[EB/OL].(2015-11-28)[2017-06-20]. http://www.riskofbias.info:1-7.
[10]	郝玉芳, 王斗, 晏利姣, 等. 近5年我国护理证据总结类论文的方法学质量分析[J]. 中国护理管理, 2020,20(4):501-505.
	Hao YF, Wang D, Yan LJ, et al. Methodological quality analysis of domestic nursing evidence summary papers in recent five years[J]. Chin Nurs Manag, 2020,20(4):501-505.
[11]	孙凤, 高乐, 杨智荣, 等. 偏倚风险评估系列:(五)非随机干预性研究[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2018,39(3):374-381. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2018.03.024 pmid: 29609257
	Sun F, Gao L, Yang ZR, et al. Series of risk of bias assessment(5):Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions(ROBINS-I)[J]. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, 2018,39(3):374-381. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2018.03.024 pmid: 29609257

某非随机干预性研究偏倚风险评估工具及使用方法的解读

The interpretation and its use method of a tool of risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions

HTML阅读

PDF下载

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 11

相关文章 3

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10

[1]	李孛万巧琴于放. 干预性研究中干预忠实度的提出与发展[J]. 中华护理教育, 2019, 16(12): 945-949.
[2]	刘红娟. 顽固性肱骨外上髁炎患者的日常生活干预[J]. 中华护理教育, 2018, 15(9): 673-677.
[3]	刘光华张青. 护理本科生关爱能力的干预研究[J]. 中华护理教育, 2016, 13(11): 824-827.