本文来源于“实用meta分析”，经整理编辑，奉献给大家。

首先介绍的是前言部分，前言部分一般是先对某些疾病或者药物做一个介绍，包括对人类的危害，发病率或者患病率等等，就是向编辑表明，我们研究这个课题是很有必要，很重要，很有意义的，并且是有争议的，然后引出我们文章的目的。前面的介绍不同的课题有不同的写法，但是后面怎么描述我们的争议，引出我们的目的一般是大同小异的，下面就给大家介绍几种写法。

①Considering the impact of the ××× risk potentially resulting from ×××, a number of studies have explored the association between ××× and ×××. However, individual studies have yielded inconsistent or conflicting findings, possibly caused by limitation sassociated with an individual study. To shed light on these contradictory results and to more precisely evaluate the relationship among ××× and ×××, we performed a meta-analysis of published studies.

②Even though several studies comparing ××× and ××× have been reported, most are small series with conflicting results. It is still uncertain whether the benefits of××× are restricted to improved ×××. We therefore systemically searched and analyzed the available literature to evaluate the efficiency, safety, and potential advantages of ××× compared with ×××.

③The aims of this study are to understand analytically the epidemiological links and association between ××× and ××× among ×××.

④There are numerous clinical trials regarding the use of ××× for treatment of ×××, with positive results; however, to our knowledge, the potential benefits of ××× for patients with ×××, to justify either their recommendation or their clinical role, have not been evaluated. In addition, a large number of studies could potentially be missed if literature searches are restricted to English-only sources. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of ××× on ×××.

⑤Although several research papers have suggested that ××× may be associated with increased ××× in ××× with ×××, no recent systematic review has synthetised the evidence in this regard. A previous systematic review dates back to year ×××, while a significant amount of literature has been published after that date. The aim of this work was to systematically review and meta-analyses the evidence on the association between ××× and ××× in ×××.

第二部分：Search strategy

①We did our best to include all ××× studies published until date, regarding the association between ××× and ×××. Eligible studies were found by searching the ××× database for relevant reports published between ××× and ×××.

②A literature search was performed in ××× without restriction to regions, publication types, or languages. The primary sources were the electronic databases of ×××.

③Trials were excluded if any of the following factors were identified: (1) insufficientinformation concerning evaluation rates; (2) animal trials, ×××××××××.

④The methods of this meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration criterion. ××× were searched for relevant electronic studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before ×××. Hand searching techniques also were used to identify appropriate studies (Manual searches of reference lists were also performed.We did not apply any language restrictions).

⑤To identify eligible studies, the main search was conducted in the electronic databases ××× from inception through ×××, using various combinations of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH terms. The procedure was concluded by: (i) the perusal of the reference sections of all relevant studies, (ii) a manual search of key journal sand abstracts from the major annual meetings in the field of ××× and (iii) contact with experts. The main search was completed independently by investigators. Any discrepancy was solved by consultation of an investigator, not involved in the initialprocedure.

第三部分：Data extraction

本部分介绍的是Data extraction，本部分的内容是比较简单的，睹物思人编辑介绍我们文章提取数据部分的内容，一般的包括第一作者，发表时间，研究地区，研究时间等等。

①Data from theincluded studies were extracted and summarized independently by two of theauthors. Any disagreement was resolved by the adjudicating senior authors.

②Data included the following: first author,publication year, country, source of control, each frequency of the case andcontrol groups, ××××××.

③Two reviewersextracted data independently using a predefined data extraction form. Disagreementswere resolved by discussion or consensus with a third reviewer.The dataextracted included the first author; study characteristics (i.e.,year, duration,setting, and design); participant characteristics (i.e., mean age, sample size,and systemic therapy); ××× of the experimental and control group treatments; measuredoutcomes. For studies with insufficient information, the reviewers contactedthe primary authors, when possible, to acquire and verify the data.

④One investigator abstractedstudy design information, baseline population characteristics, interventiondetails, disease incidence, mortality, and harms data from all included studiesinto a standardized evidence table. A second investigator checked these data for accuracy.We resolved any disagreements through discussion.

第四部分：Quality assessment

我们制作Meta分析的最终目的是为了使用，但因作者的水平和纳入文献的质量可能差距较大，因此质量也参差不齐。因此，使用Meta分析前一般是需要对其质量进行评价的，另外，有时还会针对某一疾病相关的Meta分析进行汇总评价，制作时亦需要进行质量的评价。各种类型的Meta分析的质量评价方法是不一致的，大家可以阅读相关的文献进行学习，例如曾宪涛老师的Meta分析系列就介绍了各种类型的Meta分析的质量评价。本文，列举几个例子，让大家看一下本部分的写作方法。

①The methodological quality of RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane riskof bias tool. The methodological quality of retrospective studies was assessedby the modified Newcastle-Ottawascale (NOS), which consists of three factors: patient selection,comparability of the study groups, and assessment of outcome. A score of 0-9(allocated as stars) was allocated to each study except RCTs. RCTs and observationalstudies achieving six or more stars were considered to be of high quality.

②Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Quality In Prognosis Studies(QUIPS) tool 15 with minor adaptations. The tool includes 32 key items divided into 6 domains:1) Study participation ××××××. Foreach study, each individual key item was assessed, and each domain was gradedin one of the following categories of risk of bias, based on whether the domainfully complied, partly complied, did not comply at all, or did not report in respect of the characteristic expressed by the items: 1) Low riskof bias; 2) Moderate risk of bias; 3) High risk of bias; 4) Unknown.

③Two investigators independently assessed each study’squality as “good,” “fair,” or “poor” by using predefined quality criteria based on USPSTF methods. We excluded all poor-quality randomized, controlled trialsand observational studies. In general, a good-quality study met all prespecified criteria. A fair-quality study did not meet at least 1 criterion but also did not have a known limitation that could invalidate its results. A poor-quality study had a fatal flaw or multiple important limitations. We supplemented the USPSTF criteria with criteria from the National Institute forHealth and Clinical Excellence for the quality assessment of observationalstudies. We resolved any disagreements through discussion.

④Quality was assessed using elements of the STROBEchecklist for cohort studies by 2 reviewers (××× and ×××). A third reviewer (×××) was enlisted to resolve disagreements regarding theabstracted data.

⑤Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies according to the Jadad standards. The overall scores range from 0 to 5. Scores of 0, 2 and 3, 5 were regarded as low and high scores, respectively. Disagreements were also settled down by discussion among authors.

⑥Although many scales are available to assess the validity andquality of trials, none can provide an adequately reliable assessment. Therefore, we selected a number of basic criteria for assessing the validity ofthe studies, as suggested by the Cochrane Handbook, which are frequently used in meta-analysis of ×××.The assessment was conducted by two independent reviewers and all disparities between them were resolved by consensus.

第五部分：Statistical analysis

这部分的主要内容是介绍我们使用的效应量-OR,RR,SMD,WMD等，合并效应量的方法-随机效应模型/固定效应模型，发表偏倚的检测方法-漏斗图/ Egger’s法/Begg’s法，敏感性分析，发表偏倚的，一般的每一种统计方法都有固定的表述方法。

①Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were assessed for determining the relationship between ××× and ×××.

②The weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were used to compare continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. All results were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

③For meta-analysis, the total effectiveness rates of dichotomous data were pooled using risk ratios (RRs). The aggregated results and 95% CIs for effect size were calculated using inverse-variance weighted random-effects meta-analysis. I2 was used to assess heterogeneity across studies , with I2 values of 0%, 25%, 50% and 75% representing no, low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively. Meta-regression was conducted to investigate the potential covariates that might have substantial impacts on between-study heterogeneity. Influence analysis was also conducted to determine whether an individual study affected the aggregate result or not. Visual inspection of the funnel plot and Egger’s linear regression test was done to assess publication bias. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the type of study design.

④Dichotomous data were analyzed by using the risk ratio (RR) computed using the Mantel Haenszel method (fixed or random models). Continuous outcomes measured on the same scale were expressed as a mean value and standard deviation and were analyzed by using weighted mean differences (WMD). I-square (I2) test was performed to assess the impact of study heterogeneity on the results of the meta-analysis. According to the Cochrane review guidelines, if severe heterogeneity was present at I2 >50%, the random effect models were chosen, otherwise the fixed effect models were used. Moreover, sensitivity analysis was conducted by deleting each study individually to evaluate the quality and consistency of the results. Publication bias was assessed by both Egger’s test and Begg’s test.

第六部分：Results。

这部分的内容主要是介绍我们纳入的研究的一般特征，包括质量评价的内容，以及Meta分析的主要结果。由于这部分内容，每篇文章差距较大，我们不做介绍。主要介绍结果部分的敏感性分析和发表偏倚的结果部分。

Sensitivity analysis 

①Sensitivity analysis was used to determine whether modification of the inclusion criteria affected the final results. The sensitivity analysis did not influence the results excessively by omitting anysingle study for ×××.

②However, for ×××, a single study named××× may influence the whole results. 

③Because only two studied of ×××, the sensitivity analysis was not examed. 

④We evaluatedthe effect of each study on the pooled results by excluding single study sequentially. The result shown that the stability of results had no significant changes (data not shown), which validated the rationality and reliability of our analysis.

Publication bias

①Egger’s andBegg’s tests were performed to assess publication bias and the funnel plot symmetry was examined. Finally, no proof of publication bias was obtained.

②Figure × shows a funnel plot of the studies included in this meta-analysis that reported ×××. All studies lie inside the 95% CIs, with an even distribution around the vertical, indicating no obvious publication bias.

③In this review, the use of funnel plots was limited due to the small number of studies evaluated.

④The funnel plot was applied for assessing publication bias of studies included in the incidence of ××× in this meta-analysis. No evident publication bias was obtained through the visual distribution of funnel plot.

第七部分：Discussion

文章的最后一部分-讨论部分-Discussion。这部分的内容主要是先介绍我们的Meta分析的主要结果，解释一下产生主要结果的原因，与其它研究的异同点，本研究的必要性等，以及一些缺点等。本文先介绍一下对结果的总体描述的表述，列举几个例子，让大家看一下本部分的写作方法。

①The overall goal of a meta-analysis is to combine the results of previous studies to arrive at a summary conclusion about a body of research. It is most useful in summarizing prior research when individual studies are too small to yield a valid conclusion.

②In this study, we analyzed the associations between ××× and ××× using a meta-analysis to obtain a powerful conclusion. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis providing comprehensive insights into the effects of the ××× and risk associated with ×××.

③Meta-analysis has been recognized as an effective method to answer a wide variety of clinical questions by summarizing and reviewing previously published, quantitative research. 

④Despite the fact that most of the trials had small sample sizes and poor methodological quality, analysis of the pooled data showed a consistently superior effect of ××× combined with ××× in terms of total effectiveness, when compared to the control groups.

⑤The pooled data of ×××(postoperative outcomes) suggest that ××× was associated with shorter time to ×××. Given that there were differences in ×××(postoperative patient) management preferences and hospital discharge criteria, whether these potential benefits can be proved in future well designed RCTs is not known.

文章的最后一部分-讨论部分-文章的缺点或者不足。这部分的内容主要是先介绍文章的一些缺点，包括纳入文章的类型(可能并非全部随机对照)，结果(结果可能不理想，可能存在异质性，发表偏倚等)，纳入的人群(纳入的人群可能来自不同的国家，民族等)等。本文我们将列举几个例子，让大家看一下本部分的写作方法。

①However, some limitations in our meta-analysis should be mentioned. First, our results were based on unadjusted estimates; more accurate outcomes would result from adjustments for other confounders such as gender, age, body mass index, lifestyle, and so on. Second, the studies included in this analysis were insufficient, especially in terms of a subgroup analysis. Thus, potential publication bias is very likely to exist, in spite of no evidence obtained from our statistical tests. Third, language of studies was limited to English, which may result in potential language bias. 

②A single study may influence the whole results in the sensitivity analysis for the ×××, which suggested our study may be poorly powerful and stable.

③The present meta-analysis has the following limitations that must be taken into account. The main limitation is that all the included studies were retrospective, except for two RCTs with small sample sizes. 

④The shortcomings of this meta-analysis are as follows: 1) some outcome measures data, such as ×××, which were not normally distributed and were reported in the form of median and quartile, and therefore could not be included in the meta analysis; 2) only English language reports have been included and consequently we may have missing data from important studies published in other languages.

第八部分：Conclusions

①In summary, our meta-analysis suggests that ××× are associated with ××× in the ×××population. Larger sample sizes of different ethnic populations are required to confirm our findings.

②This meta-analysis indicates that ×××. Nevertheless, despite our rigorous methodology, the inherent limitations of included studies prevent us from reaching definitive conclusions. Future large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

③While the evidence that ××× may be an effective treatment for ××× is encouraging, it is not conclusive due to the low methodological quality of the RCTs. Therefore, more high-quality RCTs, with low risk of bias and adequate sample sizes, are required to demonstrate its true effects.