MOOSEガイドライン

MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology)は、観察研究のシステマティックレビュー論文において記載すべき内容を示したガイドラインです。

Stroup DF, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283: 2008–2012, 2000

Background should include

  1. Problem definition
    明らかにされていない問題点は?
  2. Hypothesis statement
    仮説は?
  3. Description of study outcome(s)
    アウトカムは?
  4. Type of exposure or intervention used
    暴露因子は?
  5. Type of study designs used
    研究デザインは?
  6. Study population
    研究対象は?


Search strategy should include

  1. Qualifications of searchers (eg, librarians and investigators)
    検索担当者は?
  2. Search strategy, including time period included in the synthesis and keywords
    キーワードや期間等の検索式は?
  3. Effort to include all available studies, including contact with authors
    著者への連絡は?
  4. Databases and registries searched
    検索したデータベースは?
  5. Search software used, name and version, including special features used (eg, explosion)
    利用した検索アプリは?
  6. Use of hand searching (eg, reference lists of obtained articles)
    ハンドサーチは?
  7. List of citations located and those excluded, including justification
  8. Method of addressing articles published in languages other than English 
    英語以外の論文は?
  9. Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies
    学会抄録や未発表データは?
  10. Description of any contact with authors
    著者への連絡は?

Methods should include

  1. Description of relevance or appropriateness of studies assembled for assessing the hypothesis to be tested
    研究テーマに見合った論文?
  2. Rationale for the selection and coding of data (eg, sound clinical principles or convenience) 
  3. Documentation of how data were classified and coded (eg, multiple raters, blinding, and interrater reliability)
    データの抽出法は?
  4. Assessment of confounding (eg, comparability of cases and controls in studies where appropriate)
    交絡の調整方法は?
  5. Assessment of study quality, including blinding of quality assessors; stratification or regression on possible predictors of study results
    研究の質の評価方法は?
  6. Assessment of heterogeneity
    異質性の評価方法は?
  7. Description of statistical methods (eg, complete description of fixed or random effects models, justification of whether the chosen models account for predictors of study results, dose-response models, or cumulative meta-analysis) in sufficient detail to be replicated
    統計手法は?
  8. Provision of appropriate tables and graphics
    図表は適切?

Results should include

  1. Graphic summarizing individual study estimates and overall estimate フォレストプロットは?
  2. Table giving descriptive information for each study included それぞれの研究の特徴は?
  3. Results of sensitivity testing (eg, subgroup analysis) 感度分析は?
  4. Indication of statistical uncertainty of findings 結果の明らかでない点は?

Discussion should include

  1. Quantitative assessment of bias (eg, publication bias)
    出版バイアスは?
  2. Justification for exclusion (eg, exclusion of non–English-language citations)
    除外された研究によるバイアスは?
  3. Assessment of quality of included studies
    包含された研究の質は?

Conclusions should include

  1. Consideration of alternative explanations for observed results
    異なる視点から研究結果を解釈すれば?
  2. Generalization of the conclusions (ie, appropriate for the data presented and within the domain of the literature review)
    外的妥当性は?
  3. Guidelines for future research
  4. Disclosure of funding source

ガイドラインに掲載されるエビデンスを!!!