XUChang 1 , SuhailA.R.Doi 2 , ZHANGChao 3 , SUNXin 4 , CHENHao 5 , ZHOUQuan 6 , YUANRui-xia 7 , GUOPeng 8 , ZHANGLong-hao 4 , NIUYu-ming 3 , KWONGJoey S. W 4 , LIUTong-zu 1
  • 1. Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China;
  • 2. Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia;
  • 3. Center for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Research, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan 442000, China;
  • 4. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China;
  • 5. The Second Clinical College, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210023, China;
  • 6. Department of Science and Education, the First People's Hospital of Changde City, Changde 415003, China;
  • 7. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China;
  • 8. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, People's Hospital of Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan 442000, China;
KWONGJoey S. W, Email: jswkwong@hotmail.com; LIUTong-zu, Email: liutongzu@163.com
Dose-response meta-analysis; Reporting guideline; Cross-sectional analysis
10.7507/1672-2531.20160185
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective To develop reporting guideline for dose-response meta-analysis (DMA), so as to help Chinese authors to understand DMA better and to promote the reporting quality of DMA conducted by them. Method PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WanFang Data were searched from Jan 1st 2011 to Dec 30th 2015 to collect DMA papers published by Chinese authors. The number of these publications by years, whether and what kind of reporting guideline was used, and whether the DMA method claimed in these publications was correct were analysed. Then we drafted a checklist of items for reporting DMA, and organized a discussion meeting with experts from the fields of DMA, evidence-based medicine, clinical epidemiology, and clinicians to collect suggestions for revising the draft reporting guideline for DMA. Results Only 33.73% of the publications clarified it is a DMA on the title and 48.02% of them reported risk of bias. Almost 38.49% of the publications didn't use any reporting guidelines. Fourteen of them claimed an incorrect use of methodology. We primarily took account for 47 potential items related to DMA based on our literature analysis results and existing reporting guidelines for other types of meta-analyses. After the discussion meeting with 6 experts, we revised the items, and finally the G-Dose checklist with 43 items for reporting DMA was developed. Conclusion There is a lack of attention on reporting guidelines in Chinese authors and evidence suggests these authors may be at risk of incomplete understanding on reporting guidelines. It is strongly recommended to use reporting guidelines for DMA and other types of meta-analyses in Chinese authors.

Citation： XUChang, SuhailA.R.Doi, ZHANGChao, SUNXin, CHENHao, ZHOUQuan, YUANRui-xia, GUOPeng, ZHANGLong-hao, NIUYu-ming, KWONGJoey S. W, LIUTong-zu. Proposed Reporting Guideline for Dose-response Meta-analysis (Chinese Edition). Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2016, 16(10): 1221-1226. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20160185 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Brief Introduction of Methodology of Sequential Meta-analysis

  • Next Article

    The Introduction of STARD 2015 for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies