Heterogeneity Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Traditional Chinese Medicine_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

HU Dan ,  KANG Deying , HONG Qi

Department of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China;

Corresponding author：

KANG Deying, Email: jane_100403@126.com

Keywords：

Traditional Chinese Medicine; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Heterogeneity

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20100433

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective 　To analyze the heterogeneity of systematic reviews (SRs)/Meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and explore strategies for addressing heterogeneity correctly during the process of conducting TCM related to systematic reviews (SRs).
Methods 　Both electronic and hand searches were used to identify TCM SRs in CBM, CNKI, VIP database, and Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. Two researchers performed data extracting and heterogeneity evaluation independently.
Results 　A total of 115 TCM SRs were included, involving 17 types of diseases, among which the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases were the most addressed (n=36, 31.30%). There were 35.65% (n=41) of SRs which integrated two or more types of studies; interventions of the included studies were inconsistent in 53.91% (n=62) of TCM SRs; control groups of the included studies were completely different in 60 (52.17%) SRs; and 8.7% (n=10) of SRs failed to investigate heterogeneity in the process of synthesis analysis.
Conclusion 　The heterogeneity is common in TCM related to SRs, and the most addressed is clinical heterogeneity. Addressing heterogeneity incorrectly would downgrade the quality of TCM related to SRs.

Citation： HU Dan,KANG Deying,HONG Qi. Heterogeneity Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Traditional Chinese Medicine. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2010, 10(4): 488-491. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20100433 Copy

1.	Junhua Z, Hongcai S, Xiumei G, et al. Methodology and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine. J Altern Complement Med, 2007, 13(8): 797-805.
2.	李廷谦, 刘雪梅, 张鸣明, 等. 中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价/Meta分析现状调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(3): 180-188.
3.	刘建平, 夏芸. 中文期刊发表的中医药系统综述或Meta-分析文章的质量评价. 中国中西医结合杂志, 2007, 27(4): 306-311.
4.	Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. Available from www.cochranehandbook. org.
5.	康德英, 王家良, 洪旗, 等. 临床试验中Meta分析中的异质性评价研究. 华西医学, 2000, 15(2): 143-145.
6.	王丹, 翟俊霞, 牟振云, 等. Meta分析中的异质性及其处理方法. 中国循证医学杂志, 2009, 9(10): 1115-1118.
7.	Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2007, 7: 10.
8.	Shea B, Boers M, Grimshaw GJ, et al. Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2006, 6: 27.
9.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med, 2009, 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
10.	Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F. Assessing Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis: Q Statistic or I2 Index? Psychological Methods, 2006, 11(2): 193-206.
11.	王文俊, 王天方, 刘建平. 中医微观辩证研究的循证医学系统评价构想. 循证医学, 2008, 8(2): 101-103.
12.	李幼平, 吴泰相, 刘关键, 等. 卫生部中国循证医学中心关于促进中医药现代化的策略. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(4): 83-85.

1. Junhua Z, Hongcai S, Xiumei G, et al. Methodology and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine. J Altern Complement Med, 2007, 13(8): 797-805.
2. 李廷谦, 刘雪梅, 张鸣明, 等. 中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价/Meta分析现状调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(3): 180-188.
3. 刘建平, 夏芸. 中文期刊发表的中医药系统综述或Meta-分析文章的质量评价. 中国中西医结合杂志, 2007, 27(4): 306-311.
4. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. Available from www.cochranehandbook. org.
5. 康德英, 王家良, 洪旗, 等. 临床试验中Meta分析中的异质性评价研究. 华西医学, 2000, 15(2): 143-145.
6. 王丹, 翟俊霞, 牟振云, 等. Meta分析中的异质性及其处理方法. 中国循证医学杂志, 2009, 9(10): 1115-1118.
7. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2007, 7: 10.
8. Shea B, Boers M, Grimshaw GJ, et al. Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2006, 6: 27.
9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med, 2009, 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
10. Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F. Assessing Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis: Q Statistic or I2 Index? Psychological Methods, 2006, 11(2): 193-206.
11. 王文俊, 王天方, 刘建平. 中医微观辩证研究的循证医学系统评价构想. 循证医学, 2008, 8(2): 101-103.
12. 李幼平, 吴泰相, 刘关键, 等. 卫生部中国循证医学中心关于促进中医药现代化的策略. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(4): 83-85.

Previous Article
Quality Analysis of Clinical Trials on Butylphthalide for Cerebral Ischemic Stroke
Next Article
Analysis of Influencing Factors of Pregnant Women with Prolonged Latency Phase

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Heterogeneity Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Traditional Chinese Medicine

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content