Quality Evaluation on the Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses Related to Interventions Published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHOU Weiwen ^1,3 , GE Long ^1,2 , XU Junfeng ^1,2 , SHI Xintong ^1,2 , LIANG Li ^1,2 , AN Ni ^1,2 , LIU Yinchun ^1,2 , LI Yarui ^1,3 , MA Jichun ¹ , NA Heya ¹ ,  TIAN Jinhui ¹

1. School of Basic Sciences of Lanzhou University, Evidence-Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;2. The First Clinical Medicine College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;3. The Second Clinical Medicine College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;

Corresponding author：

TIAN Jinhui, Email: tianjh@lzu.edu.cn

Keywords：

PRISMA; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Reporting quality; Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20130082

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective 　To assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions published in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine by PRISMA guidelines, and to analyze its influencing factors.
Methods 　The systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions were searched in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from its inception to 2011. The quality of the included reviews was assessed in accordance with the PRISMA checklist. Based on the degree of conformity with each criterion of PRISMA, the reviews were scored as “1”, “0.5” or “0” orderly. The data were put into Excel, and the Meta-analyst software was used for statistical analysi.
Results 　Among all literature in the volume 11 (95) of the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from 2001 to 2011, a total of 379 studies were included, and the number of publication showed a yearly rising trend. The PRISMA scale score ranged from 8.5 to 26 (X±SD) was 19.97±3.15. Among all studies, 25 (6.60%) scored 21-27 points, which were regarded as the complete reporting; 226 (59.63%) scored 15-21 points, regarded as relatively complete reporting; and 128 (33.77%) scored less than 15 points, regarded as serious lack of information. The results of stratified analysis showed that, both the issue of PRISMA and fund support could improve the reporting quality, with a significant difference (P lt;0.05); and authors more than 3, authors from universities, and authors from more than 2 institutions could improve the reporting quality, but without a significant difference (P gt;0.05).
Conclusion 　The overall reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine is poor, and it is influenced by the factors of protocol and registration, risk of bias across studies, other analyses, and fund support, which have to be taken seriously. The reasonable utilization of the PRISMA checklist will improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses.

Citation： ZHOU Weiwen,GE Long,XU Junfeng,SHI Xintong,LIANG Li,AN Ni,LIU Yinchun,LI Yarui,MA Jichun,NA Heya,TIAN Jinhui. Quality Evaluation on the Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses Related to Interventions Published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2013, 13(4): 482-488. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20130082 Copy

1.	陈耀龙, 李幼平, 杜亮, 等. 医学研究中证据分级和推荐强度的演进. 中国循证医学杂志, 2008, 8(2): 127-133..
2.	Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS ONE, 2007, 2(12): e1350.
3.	Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from www.cochrane—handbook.org.
4.	Eisenberg JM, Graham R. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence, AHRQ, 2002.
5.	Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med, 2007, 4(3): e78.
6.	Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, et al. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2001, 83-A(1): 15-24.
7.	Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, et al. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med, 2001, 38(5): 518-526.
8.	Richards D. The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent, 2004, 5(1): 17.
9.	Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, et al. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg, 2001, 92(3): 700-709.
10.	Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care, 2005, 9(5): R575-R582.
11.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaf J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta. analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 2009, 6(7): e1000097.
12.	David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, 等. 系统综述和荟萃分析优先报告的条目: PRISMA声明. 中西医结合学报, 2009, 7(9): 889-896.
13.	Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(10): 1-34.
14.	张帆, 王靖, 刘琴, 等. 国内公共卫生研究领域系统评价/Meta分析的质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(12): 1367-1374.
15.	熊俊, 陈日新. 系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量的评价工具AMSTAR, 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(9): 1084-1089.
16.	王立名, 主编. 科学技术期刊编辑教程科技期刊学术质量要求及其评估标准. 第2版. 北京: 人民军医出版社, 1997: 583-585.
17.	刘雪梅. 提高随机对照试验Meta分析的质量: QUOROM报告项目列表. 中国循证医学, 2002, 2(1): 65-66.
18.	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.
19.	薛茜, 张茜. 浅谈系统评价常见的偏倚. 循证医学, 2006, 6(2): 105-108.

1. 陈耀龙, 李幼平, 杜亮, 等. 医学研究中证据分级和推荐强度的演进. 中国循证医学杂志, 2008, 8(2): 127-133..
2. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS ONE, 2007, 2(12): e1350.
3. Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from www.cochrane—handbook.org.
4. Eisenberg JM, Graham R. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence, AHRQ, 2002.
5. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med, 2007, 4(3): e78.
6. Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, et al. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2001, 83-A(1): 15-24.
7. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, et al. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med, 2001, 38(5): 518-526.
8. Richards D. The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent, 2004, 5(1): 17.
9. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, et al. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg, 2001, 92(3): 700-709.
10. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care, 2005, 9(5): R575-R582.
11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaf J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta. analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 2009, 6(7): e1000097.
12. David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, 等. 系统综述和荟萃分析优先报告的条目: PRISMA声明. 中西医结合学报, 2009, 7(9): 889-896.
13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(10): 1-34.
14. 张帆, 王靖, 刘琴, 等. 国内公共卫生研究领域系统评价/Meta分析的质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(12): 1367-1374.
15. 熊俊, 陈日新. 系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量的评价工具AMSTAR, 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(9): 1084-1089.
16. 王立名, 主编. 科学技术期刊编辑教程科技期刊学术质量要求及其评估标准. 第2版. 北京: 人民军医出版社, 1997: 583-585.
17. 刘雪梅. 提高随机对照试验Meta分析的质量: QUOROM报告项目列表. 中国循证医学, 2002, 2(1): 65-66.
18. 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.
19. 薛茜, 张茜. 浅谈系统评价常见的偏倚. 循证医学, 2006, 6(2): 105-108.

Previous Article
Effectiveness of Chinese Herbal Retention Enema in Viral Hepatitis Patients: A Meta-Analysis
Next Article
Evidence-Based Research on Rural Primary Physicians Training Modes in Gansu Province

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Quality Evaluation on the Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses Related to Interventions Published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content