摘要目的 了解盆腔器官脱垂(POP)中文观察性研究论文的撰写质量.方法 在中国生物医学文献服务系统(SinoMed)数据库中检索1996年1月至2015年12月妇产科专业期刊发表的POP相关的观察性研究论文,应用第4版加强流行病学中观察性研究报告质量(STROBE)声明对POP相关的观察性研究论文进行评估,并按论文发表时间分为1996-2005年与2006-2015年两个阶段,采用描述性分析及x2检验进行统计.结果 (1)共筛选出386篇观察性研究论文,其中病例-对照研究占15.5％(60/386),队列研究占80.6％(311/386),横断面研究占3.9％(15/386).(2)STROBE声明清单中共有22个条目、34项评估内容,其中有17项(50.0％,17/34)评估内容的报告(在观察性研究论文中被提及)比例＜50％,分别为:1a(专业术语描述研究设计)3.9％(15/386)、6a(研究对象的合格标准等)24.6％(95/386)、6b(配对研究的研究对象)0(0/386)、9(偏倚)8.3％(32/386)、10(样本大小)3.9％、11(计量变量及分组)41.2％(159/386)、12b(亚组和交互作用的检查方法)2.6％(10/386)、12c(缺失值处理)0、12d(失访处理)0、12e(敏感度分析)0、13a(各阶段研究对象的数量)18.9％(73/386)、13b(未参与的原因)18.9％、13c(流程图)0、16b(连续变量的分组界值)9.6％(37/386)、16c(相对危险度转换成绝对危险度)0、19(局限性)31.6％(122/386)、22(基金资助)20.5％(79/386).(3)比较1996-2005年与2006-2015年前后10年论文的撰写质量,2006-2015年38.2％ (13/34)的STROBE声明条目有明显改善(P均＜0.05),有改善的条目分别为:1b(摘要结构完整性)、2(研究背景和原理)、6a(研究对象的合格标准等)、7(研究变量)、8(数据来源和测量)、9(偏倚)、11(计量变量及分组)、12a(所有的统计学方法)、17(其他分析)、18(重要结果)、19(局限性)、21(可推广性)、22(基金资助).结论POP相关的中文观察性研究论文的撰写质量在50.0％的评估项目方面存在不足,但2006-2015年的论文撰写质量较1996-2005年有明显改善.

abstractsObjective To evaluate the quality of observational studies on pelvic organ prolapse in China.Methods The checklist of strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement was applied to evaluate the observational studies.The articles were searched in the SinoMed database using the terms:prolapse,uterine prolapse,cystocele,rectal prolapse and pelvic floor;limited to Chinese core journals in obstetrics and gynecology from January 1996 to December 2015.With two 10-year groups (1996-2005 and 2006-2015),the x2 test was used to evaluate inter-group differences.Results (1) A total of 386 observational studies were selected,including 15.5％(60/386) of case-control studies,80.6％(311/386) of cohort studies and 3.9％ (15/386) of cross-sectional studies.(2) There were totally 22 items including 34 sub-items in the checklist.There were 17 sub-items (50.0％,17/34) had a reporting ratio less than 50％ in all of aticles,including:1a (study's design) 3.9％ (15/386),6a (participants) 24.6％(95/386),6b (matched studies) 0 (0/386),9 (bias) 8.3％ (32/386),10 (study size) 3.9％,11 (quantitative variables) 41.2％ (159/386),12b-12e (statistical methods in detail) 0-2.6％ (10/386),13a (numbers of individuals at each stage of study) 18.9％ (73/386),13b (reasons for non-participation at each stage) 18.9％,13c (flow diagram) 0,16b and 16c (results of category boundaries and relative risk) 9.6％ (37/386) and 0,19 (limitations) 31.6％ (122/386),22 (funding) 20.5％ (79/386).(3) The quality of articles published in the two decades (1996-2005 and 2006-2015) were compared,and 38.2％ (13/34) of sub-items had been significantly improved in the second 10-year (all P＜0.05).The improved items were as follows:1b (integrity of abstract),2 (background/rationale),6a (participants),7 (variables),8 (data sources/measurement),9 (bias),11 (quantitative variables),12a (statistical methods),17 (other analyses),18 (key results),19 (limitations),21 (generalisability),22 (funding).Conclusions The quality of observational studies on POP in China is suboptimal in half of evaluation items.However,the quality of articles published in the second 10-year have significantly improved.