著者

飯嶋 久志 大澄 朋香

出版者

一般社団法人日本医薬品情報学会

雑誌

医薬品情報学 (ISSN:13451464)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.18, no.1, pp.22-32, 2016 (Released:2016-06-13)

参考文献数

104

---

Objective: Clinical articles are important for individualization of drug therapy.  Especially, meta-analysis is positioned at the highest evidence level.  Therefore, we assessed the Quality Score of Meta-Analysis (QSMA) which provides simple assessments of both the quality and the format of meta-analyses, by applying them to incretin-related drugs as a model.  Furthermore, we attempted to extract clinical data from the literature employing a certain minimum standard.Method: We searched for meta-analyses of incretin-related drugs for diabetes in PubMed and the Cochrane Library, scoring the extracted articles for format using PRISMA statements, and for quality using QSMA.  Additionally, we classified these articles into two groups with a QSMA score of 70% as the basis, and verified the analysis sets (ITT, FAS, PP or APT) and sensitivity analysis.  Furthermore, we looked into those articles that scored 70% or higher to extract data that were deemed to have significant statistical differences.Results: Scoring of the 66 articles studied yielded 69.9±19.4% (mean ± SD) for format and 62.1±17.8% for quality.  These two variables produced a regression line of y=0.777x+7.834.  Comparison of the two groups classified on the basis of a 70% score on QSMA yielded a significant difference in sensitivity analysis only (p<0.05).  Seven effects and five side effects were extracted from articles with a QSMA score of 70% or higher.Conclusion: Although QSMA can provide simple assessment of quality and structure using eight items, analysis sets needs to be verified individually.  As the articles assessed provided statistically endorsed data, the clinical application of QSMA will be an issue in the future.

著者

飯嶋 久志 大澄 朋香 小清水 敏昌

出版者

公益社団法人 日本薬学会

雑誌

YAKUGAKU ZASSHI (ISSN:00316903)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.130, no.9, pp.1215-1223, 2010 (Released:2010-09-01)

参考文献数

71

被引用文献数

2 2

---

In recent years, Evidence-based Medicine is practiced in medical care, and meta-analysis is positioned as the highest quality research paper. However, there are no unified criteria to evaluate meta-analysis. Thus, we developed and evaluated objective criteria of meta-analysis paper. Meta-analysis was evaluated from the standpoint of format and quality. Format score was developed based on QUOROM statement. Quality scores were evaluated in each step of meta-analysis. We evaluated meta-analysis for advantageous or adverse effect in the relationship between Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor and diabetes mellitus. Research articles either in English or Japanese were searched in PubMed and the Cochrane Library in July 2009. Fifty-five studies were evaluated for format and quality score. Format score was 64.5±25.3% (Mean±S.D.), and quality score was 57.1±21.6%. After plotting each score along the X-Y coordinate, format score was correlated with quality score (R2=0.702, p<0.001). In studies with quality score of 70% or higher, RAS inhibitor prevented new-onset diabetes mellitus. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor reduced risk of myocardial infarction, however, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) increased the incidence in odds ratio 1.21 (95%CI: 1.04-1.40). We evaluated meta-analysis by format and quality score, and these factors showed correlation. Therefore, assessment of quality score leads to prompt and reliable evaluation of meta-analysis. According to articles evaluated by quality score, RAS inhibitor showed effectiveness on diabetes mellitus. However, careful attention must be given in ARB therapy on patients with myocardial infarction risk.