
Chinese General Practice ›› 2022, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (21): 2651-2660.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0203
Special Issue: 泌尿系统疾病最新文章合辑; 神经退行性病变最新文章合辑; 阿尔茨海默病最新文章合辑; 肾脏疾病最新文章合辑; 脑健康最新研究合辑
• Evidence-based Medicine • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:2022-02-19
Revised:2022-05-08
Published:2022-07-20
Online:2022-05-25
Contact:
Haiou ZOU
About author:
通讯作者:
邹海欧
作者简介:
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chinagp.net/EN/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0203
Figure 1 Strategy for searching literature about associated factors of cognitive impairment in Chinese patients with end-stage renal disease in CNKI database
| 第一作者 | 发表年份(年) | 人群来源 | 样本量(T/C) | 平均年龄(岁) | 所研究的影响因素 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 郭一丹[ | 2021 | 北京市 | 496/117 | 63.82±7.14 | ①③④⑦ |
| 姜玲[ | 2017 | 山东省青岛市 | 62/25 | 41.03±4.16 | ①④ |
| 赵洁[ | 2020 | 陕西省西安市 | 84/36 | 60.12±10.89 | ①⑧ |
| 田茹[ | 2020 | 北京市 | 57/29 | — | ①②③ |
| 程琼[ | 2015 | 广东省广州市 | 142/97 | 60.61±5.99 | ③⑧ |
| 李荣娜[ | 2021 | 河北省秦皇岛市 | 68/52 | — | ①④⑧ |
| 陈管洁[ | 2021 | 江苏省连云港市 | 93/359 | 54.05±14.37 | ①②③ |
| 陈管洁(1)[ | 2021 | 江苏省连云港市 | 134/333 | — | ①③ |
| 钟馨[ | 2015 | 广东省深圳市 | 80/60 | — | ① |
| 侯娟[ | 2019 | 江苏省南京市 | 59/26 | 65.75 | ①④ |
| 胡延毅[ | 2015 | 四川省南充市 | 62/23 | 58.4±11.5 | ①④⑧ |
| 吴雷云[ | 2021 | 北京市 | 51/39 | — | ① |
| 吴雷云(1)[ | 2021 | 北京市 | 105/75 | 62.48±8.55 | |
| 董莉萍[ | 2018 | 湖北省武汉市 | 87/66 | 60.05±14.18 | ①④ |
| 高丽华[ | 2021 | 北京市 | 138/74 | 53.7±14.6 | ①④ |
| 李芬[ | 2020 | 江苏省徐州市 | 85/115 | 63.1±7.2 | ①③⑧ |
| 钱玉珺[ | 2020 | 北京市 | 127/62 | 56.4±14.2 | ⑤ |
| 蒋婷婷[ | 2020 | 河南省郑州市 | 46/189 | 72.27±5.70 | ①② |
| 钟成[ | 2018 | 江苏省南京市 | 55/50 | 77.5±7.3 | ⑨ |
| 张春霞[ | 2019 | 北京市 | 79/40 | 72.6±11.9 | ①③ |
| 张倩[ | 2021 | 河北省保定市 | 189/98 | 60.15±10.79 | ④⑤⑦ |
| 栾凤武[ | 2021 | 广西壮族自治区宁夏市 | 30/24 | 46.2±11.7 | ①②③④ |
| 姜璐[ | 2015 | 江苏省扬州市 | 23/49 | 59.2±11.8 | |
| 庞娇阳[ | 2021 | 上海市 | 38/55 | 61.62±11.90 | ①② |
| 赵媛[ | 2021 | 山西省太原市 | 49/57 | — | ①③④ |
| 朱亚南[ | 2018 | 山东省青岛市 | 99/127 | 57.45±12.60 | ①③ |
| 田晓琳[ | 2019 | 天津市 | 69/30 | 61.50±9.19 | |
| 杨杰[ | 2017 | 安徽省巢湖市 | 62/39 | 65.81±8.083 | ①③ |
| 刘娇娜[ | 2016 | 辽宁省沈阳市 | 99/117 | 51.05±12.67 | ①③⑦ |
| 李庆根[ | 2020 | 安徽省合肥市 | 57/64 | 50.25±12.14 | |
| 梁丽珍[ | 2014 | 广东省深圳市 | 71/24 | 50.7±5.6 | ①③④ |
| YI[ | 2021 | 广东省广州市 | 321/322 | 45.0(37.0,57.4) | ⑨ |
| SHEA[ | 2015 | 香港 | 21/130 | 60.0±15.0 | ①②③⑦⑩ |
| SHEA[ | 2016 | 香港 | 33/81 | 59.0±15.0 | ①③⑧ |
| XIAO[ | 2021 | 湖北省武汉市 | 168/56 | 58±14 | ①③⑥ |
| LU[ | 2018 | 上海市 | 113/106 | 60.07±12.44 | ③⑦ |
| LUO[ | 2020 | 香港 | 26/55 | 71.59±4.23 | ①②③④⑦⑧ |
| CHOU[ | 2014 | 台湾 | 414/1203 | 63.3±13.0 | ①②③④⑥⑦ |
| LING[ | 2021 | 台湾 | 2 940/29 248 | — | ①⑧⑩ |
| LI[ | 2004 | 安徽省合肥市、北京市 | 61/212 | 53.58±14.06 | ①②③ |
| LIAO[ | 2017 | 多中心 | 113/311 | 52.7±4.3 | |
| ZHU[ | 2021 | 浙江省金华市 | 75/35 | — | ①②④ |
| DONG[ | 2016 | 多中心 | 130/328 | 52.1±14.2 | |
| CUI[ | 2020 | 江苏省南京市 | 167/36 | 54.83±13.61 |
Table 1 Basic characteristics of the studies included
| 第一作者 | 发表年份(年) | 人群来源 | 样本量(T/C) | 平均年龄(岁) | 所研究的影响因素 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 郭一丹[ | 2021 | 北京市 | 496/117 | 63.82±7.14 | ①③④⑦ |
| 姜玲[ | 2017 | 山东省青岛市 | 62/25 | 41.03±4.16 | ①④ |
| 赵洁[ | 2020 | 陕西省西安市 | 84/36 | 60.12±10.89 | ①⑧ |
| 田茹[ | 2020 | 北京市 | 57/29 | — | ①②③ |
| 程琼[ | 2015 | 广东省广州市 | 142/97 | 60.61±5.99 | ③⑧ |
| 李荣娜[ | 2021 | 河北省秦皇岛市 | 68/52 | — | ①④⑧ |
| 陈管洁[ | 2021 | 江苏省连云港市 | 93/359 | 54.05±14.37 | ①②③ |
| 陈管洁(1)[ | 2021 | 江苏省连云港市 | 134/333 | — | ①③ |
| 钟馨[ | 2015 | 广东省深圳市 | 80/60 | — | ① |
| 侯娟[ | 2019 | 江苏省南京市 | 59/26 | 65.75 | ①④ |
| 胡延毅[ | 2015 | 四川省南充市 | 62/23 | 58.4±11.5 | ①④⑧ |
| 吴雷云[ | 2021 | 北京市 | 51/39 | — | ① |
| 吴雷云(1)[ | 2021 | 北京市 | 105/75 | 62.48±8.55 | |
| 董莉萍[ | 2018 | 湖北省武汉市 | 87/66 | 60.05±14.18 | ①④ |
| 高丽华[ | 2021 | 北京市 | 138/74 | 53.7±14.6 | ①④ |
| 李芬[ | 2020 | 江苏省徐州市 | 85/115 | 63.1±7.2 | ①③⑧ |
| 钱玉珺[ | 2020 | 北京市 | 127/62 | 56.4±14.2 | ⑤ |
| 蒋婷婷[ | 2020 | 河南省郑州市 | 46/189 | 72.27±5.70 | ①② |
| 钟成[ | 2018 | 江苏省南京市 | 55/50 | 77.5±7.3 | ⑨ |
| 张春霞[ | 2019 | 北京市 | 79/40 | 72.6±11.9 | ①③ |
| 张倩[ | 2021 | 河北省保定市 | 189/98 | 60.15±10.79 | ④⑤⑦ |
| 栾凤武[ | 2021 | 广西壮族自治区宁夏市 | 30/24 | 46.2±11.7 | ①②③④ |
| 姜璐[ | 2015 | 江苏省扬州市 | 23/49 | 59.2±11.8 | |
| 庞娇阳[ | 2021 | 上海市 | 38/55 | 61.62±11.90 | ①② |
| 赵媛[ | 2021 | 山西省太原市 | 49/57 | — | ①③④ |
| 朱亚南[ | 2018 | 山东省青岛市 | 99/127 | 57.45±12.60 | ①③ |
| 田晓琳[ | 2019 | 天津市 | 69/30 | 61.50±9.19 | |
| 杨杰[ | 2017 | 安徽省巢湖市 | 62/39 | 65.81±8.083 | ①③ |
| 刘娇娜[ | 2016 | 辽宁省沈阳市 | 99/117 | 51.05±12.67 | ①③⑦ |
| 李庆根[ | 2020 | 安徽省合肥市 | 57/64 | 50.25±12.14 | |
| 梁丽珍[ | 2014 | 广东省深圳市 | 71/24 | 50.7±5.6 | ①③④ |
| YI[ | 2021 | 广东省广州市 | 321/322 | 45.0(37.0,57.4) | ⑨ |
| SHEA[ | 2015 | 香港 | 21/130 | 60.0±15.0 | ①②③⑦⑩ |
| SHEA[ | 2016 | 香港 | 33/81 | 59.0±15.0 | ①③⑧ |
| XIAO[ | 2021 | 湖北省武汉市 | 168/56 | 58±14 | ①③⑥ |
| LU[ | 2018 | 上海市 | 113/106 | 60.07±12.44 | ③⑦ |
| LUO[ | 2020 | 香港 | 26/55 | 71.59±4.23 | ①②③④⑦⑧ |
| CHOU[ | 2014 | 台湾 | 414/1203 | 63.3±13.0 | ①②③④⑥⑦ |
| LING[ | 2021 | 台湾 | 2 940/29 248 | — | ①⑧⑩ |
| LI[ | 2004 | 安徽省合肥市、北京市 | 61/212 | 53.58±14.06 | ①②③ |
| LIAO[ | 2017 | 多中心 | 113/311 | 52.7±4.3 | |
| ZHU[ | 2021 | 浙江省金华市 | 75/35 | — | ①②④ |
| DONG[ | 2016 | 多中心 | 130/328 | 52.1±14.2 | |
| CUI[ | 2020 | 江苏省南京市 | 167/36 | 54.83±13.61 |
| 纳入研究 | ① | ② | ③ | ④ | ⑤ | ⑥ | ⑦ | ⑧ | ⑨ | ⑩ | 最终得分 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 郭一丹[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| 姜玲[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 赵洁[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 田茹[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 李荣娜[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 陈管洁[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 陈管洁(1)[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 钟馨[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 侯娟[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 胡延毅[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| 吴雷云[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| 吴雷云(1)[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 董莉萍[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| 高丽华[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 李芬[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 钱玉珺[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 蒋婷婷[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 钟成[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 张春霞[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 张倩[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 栾凤武[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 姜璐[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 庞娇阳[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 赵媛[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 朱亚南[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 田晓琳[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 杨杰[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 刘娇娜[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 李庆根[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 梁丽珍[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| YI[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| XIAO[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| LU[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| LUO[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| CHOU[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| LI[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| LIAO[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| ZHU[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| DONG[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| CUI[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Table 2 Results of methodological quality evaluation of the included cross-sectional studies
| 纳入研究 | ① | ② | ③ | ④ | ⑤ | ⑥ | ⑦ | ⑧ | ⑨ | ⑩ | 最终得分 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 郭一丹[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| 姜玲[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 赵洁[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 田茹[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 李荣娜[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 陈管洁[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 陈管洁(1)[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 钟馨[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 侯娟[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 胡延毅[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| 吴雷云[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| 吴雷云(1)[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 董莉萍[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| 高丽华[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 李芬[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 钱玉珺[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 蒋婷婷[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 钟成[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 张春霞[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 张倩[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 栾凤武[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 姜璐[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 庞娇阳[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 赵媛[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 朱亚南[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 田晓琳[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 杨杰[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 刘娇娜[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 李庆根[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 梁丽珍[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| YI[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| XIAO[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| LU[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| LUO[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| CHOU[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| LI[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| LIAO[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| ZHU[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| DONG[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| CUI[ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 纳入研究 | 研究人群选择 | 组间可比性 | 暴露或结果评价 | 最终得分 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHEA[ | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 |
| SHEA[ | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 |
Table 3 Methodological quality evaluation results of the includedcohort studies
| 纳入研究 | 研究人群选择 | 组间可比性 | 暴露或结果评价 | 最终得分 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHEA[ | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 |
| SHEA[ | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 |
| 纳入研究 | 研究人群选择 | 组间可比性 | 暴露或结果评价 | 最终得分 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 程琼[ | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 |
| LING[ | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 |
Table 4 Methodological quality evaluation results of the included case-control studies
| 纳入研究 | 研究人群选择 | 组间可比性 | 暴露或结果评价 | 最终得分 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 程琼[ | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 |
| LING[ | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 |
| 影响因素 | 纳入研究 | 患者例数 | 异质性检验 | 效应模型 | 效应量 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2(%) | P值 | OR(95%CI) | P值 | ||||
| 年龄(高) | 31[ | 38 933 | 88.6 | <0.001 | 随机 | 1.17(1.13,1.22) | <0.001 |
| 性别(男性) | 10[ | 3 172 | 69.2 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.55(0.37,0.82) | 0.003 |
| 教育程度(高) | 20[ | 5 653 | 82.3 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.45(0.37,0.55) | <0.001 |
| 透析龄(长) | 14[ | 3 705 | 81.1 | <0.001 | 随机 | 1.02(1.00,1.03) | 0.008 |
| 透析方式(腹透) | 2[ | 476 | 94.2 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.080(0.001,9.170) | 0.301 |
| 透析频率(高) | 2[ | 1 841 | 77.5 | 0.012 | 随机 | 0.53(0.19,1.44) | 0.212 |
| Kt/V(高) | 7[ | 3 184 | 99.4 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.12(0.01,1.01) | 0.051 |
| 高血压 | 8[ | 33 147 | 90.5 | <0.001 | 随机 | 2.02(1.06,3.86) | 0.032 |
| 收缩压(高) | 2[ | 748 | 75.3 | 0.044 | 随机 | 1.17(0.95,1.44) | 0.144 |
| 高血脂 | 2[ | 32 339 | 52.0 | 0.149 | 随机 | 0.82(0.35,1.90) | 0.645 |
| 心血管病史 | 2[ | 1 727 | 37.7 | 0.205 | 固定 | 1.16(0.89,1.51) | 0.271 |
| 脑卒中 | 5[ | 34 652 | 66.8 | 0.010 | 随机 | 1.93(1.33,2.80) | 0.001 |
| 糖尿病 | 13[ | 36 387 | 52.1 | 0.012 | 随机 | 1.99(1.62,2.44) | <0.001 |
| 胰岛素抵抗指数(高) | 2[ | 177 | 85.4 | 0.009 | 随机 | 1.68(0.15,18.27) | 0.672 |
| 合并症指数(高) | 2[ | 406 | 60.8 | 0.110 | 随机 | 5.28(1.48,18.82) | 0.010 |
| 睡眠情况(失眠) | 2[ | 32 427 | 52.7 | 0.146 | 随机 | 1.40(0.92,2.12) | 0.112 |
| 抑郁 | 4[ | 33 183 | 76.2 | 0.002 | 随机 | 2.46(1.61,3.77) | <0.001 |
| 营养不良 | 2[ | 573 | 59.5 | 0.116 | 随机 | 2.52(0.91,7.01) | 0.076 |
| 贫血 | 2[ | 32 308 | 94.0 | <0.001 | 随机 | 1.91(0.58,6.31) | 0.291 |
| 瘦体组织质量(高) | 2[ | 301 | 70.0 | 0.068 | 随机 | 0.51(0.12,2.12) | 0.353 |
| Hb(高) | 16[ | 3 862 | 86.8 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.91(0.86,0.95) | <0.001 |
| ALB(高) | 5[ | 2 279 | 85.4 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.77(0.63,0.94) | 0.009 |
| Cr(高) | 2[ | 2 069 | 0 | 0.928 | 固定 | 0.997(0.995,0.999) | 0.003 |
| PTH(高) | 4[ | 1 030 | 62.0 | 0.048 | 随机 | 1.02(1.00,1.04) | 0.034 |
| iPTH(高) | 3[ | 584 | 83.7 | <0.001 | 随机 | 1.000(0.996,1.010) | 0.359 |
| UA(高) | 2[ | 219 | 99.9 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.31(0.03,3.20) | 0.322 |
| CRP(高) | 4[ | 327 | 90.7 | <0.001 | 随机 | 1.20(1.01,1.42) | 0.040 |
| hs-CRP(高) | 3[ | 379 | 89.7 | <0.001 | 随机 | 2.30(0.88,6.00) | 0.089 |
| P(高) | 2[ | 1 904 | 59.8 | 0.115 | 随机 | 0.52(0.07,3.59) | 0.505 |
| 25(OH)D3(高) | 3[ | 604 | 84.6 | 0.002 | 随机 | 0.94(0.85,1.05) | 0.300 |
| Hcy(高) | 2[ | 260 | 0 | 0.968 | 固定 | 3.34(2.06,5.42) | <0.001 |
Table 5 Meta-analysis of influencing factors of cognitive impairment in Chinese patients with end-stage renal disease
| 影响因素 | 纳入研究 | 患者例数 | 异质性检验 | 效应模型 | 效应量 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2(%) | P值 | OR(95%CI) | P值 | ||||
| 年龄(高) | 31[ | 38 933 | 88.6 | <0.001 | 随机 | 1.17(1.13,1.22) | <0.001 |
| 性别(男性) | 10[ | 3 172 | 69.2 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.55(0.37,0.82) | 0.003 |
| 教育程度(高) | 20[ | 5 653 | 82.3 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.45(0.37,0.55) | <0.001 |
| 透析龄(长) | 14[ | 3 705 | 81.1 | <0.001 | 随机 | 1.02(1.00,1.03) | 0.008 |
| 透析方式(腹透) | 2[ | 476 | 94.2 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.080(0.001,9.170) | 0.301 |
| 透析频率(高) | 2[ | 1 841 | 77.5 | 0.012 | 随机 | 0.53(0.19,1.44) | 0.212 |
| Kt/V(高) | 7[ | 3 184 | 99.4 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.12(0.01,1.01) | 0.051 |
| 高血压 | 8[ | 33 147 | 90.5 | <0.001 | 随机 | 2.02(1.06,3.86) | 0.032 |
| 收缩压(高) | 2[ | 748 | 75.3 | 0.044 | 随机 | 1.17(0.95,1.44) | 0.144 |
| 高血脂 | 2[ | 32 339 | 52.0 | 0.149 | 随机 | 0.82(0.35,1.90) | 0.645 |
| 心血管病史 | 2[ | 1 727 | 37.7 | 0.205 | 固定 | 1.16(0.89,1.51) | 0.271 |
| 脑卒中 | 5[ | 34 652 | 66.8 | 0.010 | 随机 | 1.93(1.33,2.80) | 0.001 |
| 糖尿病 | 13[ | 36 387 | 52.1 | 0.012 | 随机 | 1.99(1.62,2.44) | <0.001 |
| 胰岛素抵抗指数(高) | 2[ | 177 | 85.4 | 0.009 | 随机 | 1.68(0.15,18.27) | 0.672 |
| 合并症指数(高) | 2[ | 406 | 60.8 | 0.110 | 随机 | 5.28(1.48,18.82) | 0.010 |
| 睡眠情况(失眠) | 2[ | 32 427 | 52.7 | 0.146 | 随机 | 1.40(0.92,2.12) | 0.112 |
| 抑郁 | 4[ | 33 183 | 76.2 | 0.002 | 随机 | 2.46(1.61,3.77) | <0.001 |
| 营养不良 | 2[ | 573 | 59.5 | 0.116 | 随机 | 2.52(0.91,7.01) | 0.076 |
| 贫血 | 2[ | 32 308 | 94.0 | <0.001 | 随机 | 1.91(0.58,6.31) | 0.291 |
| 瘦体组织质量(高) | 2[ | 301 | 70.0 | 0.068 | 随机 | 0.51(0.12,2.12) | 0.353 |
| Hb(高) | 16[ | 3 862 | 86.8 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.91(0.86,0.95) | <0.001 |
| ALB(高) | 5[ | 2 279 | 85.4 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.77(0.63,0.94) | 0.009 |
| Cr(高) | 2[ | 2 069 | 0 | 0.928 | 固定 | 0.997(0.995,0.999) | 0.003 |
| PTH(高) | 4[ | 1 030 | 62.0 | 0.048 | 随机 | 1.02(1.00,1.04) | 0.034 |
| iPTH(高) | 3[ | 584 | 83.7 | <0.001 | 随机 | 1.000(0.996,1.010) | 0.359 |
| UA(高) | 2[ | 219 | 99.9 | <0.001 | 随机 | 0.31(0.03,3.20) | 0.322 |
| CRP(高) | 4[ | 327 | 90.7 | <0.001 | 随机 | 1.20(1.01,1.42) | 0.040 |
| hs-CRP(高) | 3[ | 379 | 89.7 | <0.001 | 随机 | 2.30(0.88,6.00) | 0.089 |
| P(高) | 2[ | 1 904 | 59.8 | 0.115 | 随机 | 0.52(0.07,3.59) | 0.505 |
| 25(OH)D3(高) | 3[ | 604 | 84.6 | 0.002 | 随机 | 0.94(0.85,1.05) | 0.300 |
| Hcy(高) | 2[ | 260 | 0 | 0.968 | 固定 | 3.34(2.06,5.42) | <0.001 |
| 影响因素 | 剔除后纳入文献 | 剔除文献 | 剔除前 | 剔除后 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 模型 | OR(95%CI) | P值 | 偏倚风险P值 | 模型 | OR(95%CI) | P值 | 偏倚风险P值 | |||
| 性别 | 9[ | 1[ | 随机 | 0.55(0.37,0.82) | 0.003 | 0.037 | 随机 | 0.63(0.44,0.90) | 0.011 | 0.109 |
| 透析龄 | 12[ | 2[ | 随机 | 1.02(1.00,1.03) | 0.008 | 0.022 | 随机 | 1.02(1.01,1.03) | 0.004 | 0.116 |
| 糖尿病 | 10[ | 3[ | 随机 | 1.99(1.62,2.44) | <0.001 | <0.001 | 固定 | 1.79(1.52,2.10) | <0.001 | 0.084 |
Table 6 Results of sensitivity analysis of cognitive impairment-related factors inChinese patients with end-stage renal disease
| 影响因素 | 剔除后纳入文献 | 剔除文献 | 剔除前 | 剔除后 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 模型 | OR(95%CI) | P值 | 偏倚风险P值 | 模型 | OR(95%CI) | P值 | 偏倚风险P值 | |||
| 性别 | 9[ | 1[ | 随机 | 0.55(0.37,0.82) | 0.003 | 0.037 | 随机 | 0.63(0.44,0.90) | 0.011 | 0.109 |
| 透析龄 | 12[ | 2[ | 随机 | 1.02(1.00,1.03) | 0.008 | 0.022 | 随机 | 1.02(1.01,1.03) | 0.004 | 0.116 |
| 糖尿病 | 10[ | 3[ | 随机 | 1.99(1.62,2.44) | <0.001 | <0.001 | 固定 | 1.79(1.52,2.10) | <0.001 | 0.084 |
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
王善志,朱永俊,李国铨,等. 中国成人慢性肾脏病患病率的Meta分析结果及对比[J]. 中华肾脏病杂志,2018,34(8):579-586. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-7097.2018.08.004.
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
席海玲,陈赟敏,周婷婷,等. 腹膜透析联合血液透析治疗终末期肾病的研究进展[J]. 中国血液净化,2020,19(8):550-553. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-4091.2020.08.012.
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] | |
| [7] |
李云生,王文龙,戴再友,等. 高压氧对腹膜透析患者认知功能障碍和脑源性神经营养因子的影响[J]. 中国中西医结合肾病杂志,2016,17(8):705-707.
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
郭一丹,张春霞,田茹,等. 中老年维持性血液透析患者认知功能损伤特征的横断面研究[J]. 中华肾脏病杂志,2021,37(8):632-638. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn441217-20201118-00094.
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
王宇,汤嘉敏,潘燕彬,等. 认知功能及躯体功能与血液透析患者负性情绪的相关性[J]. 国际护理学杂志,2021,40(4):607-609. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn221370-20191231-00176.
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
刘敏,关思博,闵旭,等. 腹膜透析患者认知功能障碍的研究进展[J]. 中国中西医结合肾病杂志,2018,19(2):182-185. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1009-587X.2018.02.033.
|
| [15] |
National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for bone metabolism and disease in chronic kidney disease[J]. Am J Kidney Dis,2003,42(4 Suppl 3):S1-201.
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
曾宪涛,刘慧,陈曦,等. Meta分析系列之四:观察性研究的质量评价工具[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志,2012,4(4):297-299. DOI:10.3969/j.1674-4055.2012.04.004.
|
| [18] |
姜玲,孔慧,张洁,等. 中青年终末期肾脏病维持性血液透析患者认知功能改变及相关影响因素分析[J]. 中国医学前沿杂志(电子版),2017,9(2):150-153. DOI:10.12037/YXQY.2017.02-32.
|
| [19] |
赵洁,蒙军平,王华,等. 影响血液透析患者认知功能的相关因素分析[J]. 临床医学研究与实践,2020,5(22):15-16,25. DOI:10.19347/j.cnki.2096-1413.202022005.
|
| [20] |
田茹,冯兴中,罗洋. 血液透析患者中医证型与认知功能障碍的相关性研究[J]. 世界中西医结合杂志,2020,15(11):2086-2089,2093. DOI:10.13935/j.cnki.sjzx.201125.
|
| [21] | |
| [22] |
李荣娜,胡秋霞,周大敏. 维持性血液透析患者血清同型半胱氨酸、胱抑素C、超敏C反应蛋白水平变化及其与认知功能障碍的相关性分析[J]. 中国医刊,2021,56(4):416-419. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-1070.2021.04.017.
|
| [23] |
陈管洁,张海林,尹丽霞,等. 维持性血液透析患者认知衰弱的现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中国护理管理,2021,21(8):1179-1185. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2021.08.013.
|
| [24] |
陈管洁,张海林,尹丽霞,等. 维持性血液透析患者认知功能障碍与衰弱的相关性[J]. 护理学杂志,2021,36(6):27-31. DOI:10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2021.06.027.
|
| [25] |
钟馨,李朝晖,陈瑞娟,等. 维持性血液透析患者认知功能障碍相关因素分析[J]. 临床肾脏病杂志,2015,15(3):175-179. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-2390.2015.03.010.
|
| [26] |
侯娟,陆鹏,张勇,等. 维持性血液透析患者认知功能障碍及相关危险因素分析[J]. 现代医学,2019,47(11):1387-1390. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-7562.2019.11.022.
|
| [27] |
胡延毅,邓红梅,龙红英,等. 维持性血液透析患者认知功能障碍的相关因素分析及防治体会[J]. 中华全科医学,2015,13(2):320-322. DOI:10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.2015.02.013.
|
| [28] |
吴雷云,邓英辉,张爱华. 维持性血液透析患者认知功能障碍的特点及其与预后的关系[J]. 中国临床医生杂志,2021,49(7):806-810. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.2095-8552.2021.07.016.
|
| [29] |
吴雷云,秦雅婧,张爱华. 维持性血液透析患者人体成分与认知功能障碍的关系[J]. 同济大学学报(医学版),2021,42(4):522-527. DOI:10.12289/j.issn.1008-0392.21159.
|
| [30] |
董莉萍,吴玮聪,位红兰,等. 维持性血液透析患者认知功能与全因死亡及心脑血管病死亡关系的分析[J]. 中国分子心脏病学杂志,2018,18(2):2430-2432. DOI:10.16563/j.cnki.1671-6272.2018.04.010.
|
| [31] |
高丽华,邓春颖,孙妍,等. 维持性血液透析的终末期肾病患者认知障碍及相关因素分析[J]. 中国煤炭工业医学杂志,2021,24(3):307-311. DOI:10.11723/mtgyyx1007-9564202103018.
|
| [32] |
李芬. 慢性肾脏病腹膜透析病人认知功能障碍现状及影响因素分析[J]. 全科护理,2020,18(35):4905-4907. DOI:10.12104/j.issn.1674-4748.2020.35.011.
|
| [33] |
钱玉珺,杨建萍,侯波,等. 维持性血液透析与腹膜透析患者认知功能障碍的比较[J]. 中华肾脏病杂志,2020,36(9):657-665. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn441217-20200303-00119.
|
| [34] |
蒋婷婷,单岩,杜理平,等. 老年血液透析患者认知衰弱现状及其与跌倒恐惧的相关性研究[J]. 中国护理管理,2020,20(7):1005-1009. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2020.07.010.
|
| [35] |
钟成,赵亚亚,赵卫红. 老年维持性血液透析合并认知功能障碍相关危险因素研究[J]. 中国医学前沿杂志:电子版,2018,10(6):135-138. DOI:10.12037/YXQY.2018.06-03.
|
| [36] |
张春霞,郭一丹,罗洋. 老年透析患者血清超敏C反应蛋白与认知功能的关系[J]. 中国现代医学杂志,2019,29(16):85-89. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-8982.2019.16.016.
|
| [37] |
张倩,李璐,文诗伟,等. 继发性甲状旁腺功能亢进症与终末期肾病轻度认知障碍的关系研究[J]. 临床肾脏病杂志,2021,21(1):15-21. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-2390.y20-071.
|
| [38] |
栾凤武,彭佳楠,冯晓楠,等. 腹膜透析患者认知障碍及其危险因素的研究[J]. 宁夏医学杂志,2021,43(8):684-686. DOI:10.13621/j.1001-5949.2021.08.0684.
|
| [39] |
姜璐,韩年华. 非透析慢性肾衰竭患者认知功能障碍与胰岛素抵抗关系的研究[J]. 哈尔滨医药,2015,35(2):87-89.
|
| [40] |
庞娇阳,张炜晨,黄碧红,等. 残余肾功能与维持性血液透析患者认知功能关系的研究[J]. 中国血液净化,2021,20(2):90-94. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-4091.2021.02.005.
|
| [41] |
赵媛. 维持性血液透析患者认知障碍与左室射血分数的关系[D]. 太原:山西医科大学,2021.
|
| [42] |
朱亚南. 血液透析患者认知功能障碍的危险因素分析及预测模型的构建[D]. 青岛:青岛大学,2018.
|
| [43] |
田晓琳. 维持性血液透析的ESRD患者的认知障碍及其与脑小血管病的关系[D]. 天津:天津医科大学,2019.
|
| [44] |
杨杰. 维持性血液透析患者认知功能障碍及其危险因素分析[D]. 合肥:安徽医科大学,2020.
|
| [45] |
刘娇娜. 维持性血液透析患者认知功能损害危险因素分析及中医证型特点[D]. 沈阳:辽宁中医药大学,2016.
|
| [46] |
李庆根. 维持性腹膜透析患者认知功能障碍与营养不良之间的关系研究[D]. 合肥:安徽医科大学,2020.
|
| [47] |
梁丽珍. 非血管性因素对慢性肾衰竭血液透析病人认知功能的影响研究[J]. 齐齐哈尔医学院学报,2014,35(13):2025-2026.
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
|
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
中国痴呆与认知障碍诊治指南写作组. 2018中国痴呆与认知障碍诊治指南(五):轻度认知障碍的诊断与治疗[J]. 中华医学杂志,2018,98(17):1294-1301. DOI:10.3760/cma,j.issn.0376-2491.2018.17.003.
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
| [67] |
|
| [68] |
|
| [69] |
|
| [70] |
|
| [71] |
李艳青,吴红霞,孙建萍,等. 老年2型糖尿病患者轻度认知障碍危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 现代预防医学,2021,48(9):1715-1720.
|
| [72] |
|
| [73] |
|
| [74] |
|
| [75] |
|
| [76] |
|
| [77] |
|
| [78] |
|
| [79] |
|
| [80] |
张兰,孙超,程艳娇,等. 维持性血液透析患者心理和认知功能调查及其影响因素分析[J]. 中国血液净化,2019,18(2):107-109. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-4091.2019.02.007.
|
| [1] | LI Jiawei, GAO Xinyi, GE Aoqi, LI Juanjuan, YUAN Beibei. Demand and Associated Factors for Integrated Medical Care and Preventive Services among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(21): 3028-3039. |
| [2] | LI Feng, HU Changhao, LUO Xu. Progress in the Study of Influencing Factors and Intervention Strategies of Mental Health in Elderly Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(20): 2816-2828. |
| [3] | ZHANG Huifang, CHEN Cunchuan, FAN Boyang, SUN Wenning, WANG Yingjie, ZHANG Ao, ZHAO Yang, WANG Haipeng. Study on the Service Capability of Primary Care Doctors to Integrate Medical and Preventive Services and Its Influencing Factors in Shandong Province [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(19): 2711-2716. |
| [4] | TANG Lijuan, QI Qi, ZHANG Fan, GAO Yifu, CAO Yajing, YUE Fujuan, GAO Jinchai, LIU Xiaoli. Characterisation of the Prevalence of Overweight/Obesity among Residents Aged 18-44 Years in Hebei Province in 2013 and 2020 [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(19): 2695-2704. |
| [5] | LI Yutong, ZHAO Danting, JIANG Feng, WANG Yanna, LIU Yizong, LIANG Wenjuan, LU Jiahai. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of mRNA and Recombinant Protein Subunit Vaccines Against Respiratory Syncytial Virus [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(19): 2744-2752. |
| [6] | ZHANG Wenbo, WANG Junlong, ZHANG Yuping, JIANG Shuai, WANG Huaqi. The Risk of Pre-COPD Populations Progressing to COPD under Different Criteria: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(19): 2735-2743. |
| [7] | LIU Fang, LIU Weinan, XIANG Yuanyue, LU Cheng, ZHU Binhai. Factors Influencing Work-related Flow among "3+2" Order-oriented Assistant General Practitioners in Jiangsu Province [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(18): 2454-2460. |
| [8] | YOU Lili, LIU Lu, CHEN Ying, KANG Qixue, WANG Yuxing, WANG Jingbo, ZHANG Bingli. Fifteen Years Review and Future Prospects of China's National Essential Public Health Services [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(17): 2282-2295. |
| [9] | CHEN Yan, SHEN Dequan, SHENG Renlei, CHANG Yujie, YANG Jiaqi, DING Jie, SUN Zhifang, WANG Dahui. Influencing Factors and Importance Ranking of the Utilization of Primary-level Traditional Chinese Medicine Preventive and Health Care Services for the Elderly [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2182-2189. |
| [10] | YU Shan, CHE Yajie, SUBIYINUER· Maimaiti, GUO Kaiyang, FENG Xingxing, YAN Ping. A Comparative Study on the Current Situation and Influencing Factors of Subjective Cognitive Decline among Urban and Rural Elderly People in Xinjiang [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2227-2233. |
| [11] | CHEN Bihua, LIN Qiyi, LI Wuhua, SU Jin, TU Liping, SHI Lan, DING Xiaoqin, YI Chuntao. The Influencing Factors and Mechanisms of the Work Output Level of Family Doctor Teams from the Perspective of Team Effectiveness [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2167-2173. |
| [12] | YU Chao, SONG Lihua, WANG Linyan, LU Yunping, WANG Linyang, CUI Wei. The Functional Outcomes and Influencing Factors in Patients with First-episode Major Depressive Disorder after 7 Years [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2221-2226. |
| [13] | LUO Yutong, LI Jing. The HPV Vaccine Coverage and Its Influencing Factors among the Eligible Population in China Based on a Geographically Weighted Regression Model [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2234-2243. |
| [14] | FU Mingyuan, YU Xiaoyi, GE Caiying, KONG Min. Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycemia: Prevalence and Determinants among Community-based Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2252-2258. |
| [15] | GUO Jiao, ZHANG Gaojing, LIU Xincan. Quality Evaluation of TCM Clinical Practice Guidelines/Consensus: Based on Two Guideline Evaluation Tools [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(15): 2100-2106. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||