论文部分内容阅读
Aim: It is imperative to provide a more uniform method to improve the validity of prevalence study on multi-morbidity.However, the status of prevalence study on multi-morbidity of chronic disease is still not to be grasped in China.The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the variance across prevalence studies and to explore possible explanations for variations in China.Methods: Published literature was obtained from four databases.The studies that described the prevalence of multi-morbidity on chronic disease based on general population were considered.We assessed the risk of bias by a pre-planed checklist referring to STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology).The heterogeneity among eligible studies was estimated by I2 statistic and p-value using Meta-Analyst software.Results: Nine studies were eligible for this systematic review.The prevalence of muti-morbidity among population aged 60 or more was raging from 6.4% (95%CI: 5.1%-8.0%) to 76.5% (95%CI: 73.6%-79.2%).However, only 2 of 9 studies could be judged as low risk of bias.It was demonstrated that key items introducing risk of bias included inconsistent sampling method, lacking of uniform measure indices and data source based on self-report.Heterogeneity test showed I2=50% (P<0.001) which indicated there were substantial variation among individual studies.Therefore, only narrative summary rather than meta-analyses was conducted.Conclusions: Marked methodology heterogeneity exists among prevalence studies on multi-morbidity.The methodological aspects were suggested to be considered in the future study, focusing on sampling method, measure indices of multi-morbidity and data source.