Reporting quality and its influencing factors of literature screening results for systematic reviews on acupuncture_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

GUO Qiong ¹ , ZHANG Chenyang ² , YANG Liu ³ , YANG Huifang ⁴ , WANG Xinyi ³ , LONG Youlin ^1,3 , CHENG Yifan ³ , FENG Kun ³ ,  HUANG Jin ¹ ,  DU Liang ⁵

1. Medical Device Regulatory Research and Evaluation Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
2. West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
3. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
4. West China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
5. West China Publishers, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

HUANG Jin, Email: michael_huangjin@163.com; DU Liang, Email: duliang0606@vip.sina.com

Keywords：

Acupuncture; Literature screening; Reporting quality; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Factor

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202111128

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses on acupuncture focusing on literature screening results and explore the influencing factors of the complete reporting.Methods PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases were searched to collect SRs/meta-analyses on acupuncture from inception to December 31^st, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the reporting quality of literature screening results of SRs/meta-analyses on acupuncture based on PRISMA statement. Logistic regression model analysis was applied to explore the influencing factors of the complete reporting rate of literature screening results. Statistical analysis was performed by using Excel 2016 and SPSS 16.0 software.Results A total of 1 227 SRs/meta-analyses were included. Only 62.3% SRs fully reported the four parts of literature screening results. The parts with a low reporting rate included the number of studies assessed for eligibility (73.2%) and the reasons for exclusions at each stage (67.0%). And the reporting rate of the literature screening flowchart was also low (63.6%). The reporting rate of literature screening results in Chinese SRs was lower than that in English SRs, and there was significantly statistical difference (P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the type of published journal, publication year, pages of article and the number of searched databases were correlated with the complete reporting rate of literature screening results (P<0.001).Conclusions The complete reporting rate of the literature screening results of SRs on acupuncture is low, especially in Chinese SRs. The complete reporting rate of literature screening results is significantly higher for SRs published after PRISMA statement, in SCI journals, with longer length and more searched databases.

Citation： GUO Qiong, ZHANG Chenyang, YANG Liu, YANG Huifang, WANG Xinyi, LONG Youlin, CHENG Yifan, FENG Kun, HUANG Jin, DU Liang. Reporting quality and its influencing factors of literature screening results for systematic reviews on acupuncture. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2022, 22(1): 89-96. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202111128 Copy

1.	White AR, Rampes H, Liu JP, et al. Acupuncture and related interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014, (1): CD000009.
2.	思金华, 赵晨, 刘妮波, 等. 基于SCIE和GoPubMed的针灸学文献统计分析. 中国针灸, 2015, 35(12): 1309-1314.
3.	王锐卿, 吕九亨, 贾春生. 海外针灸对国内针灸的启示与思考. 中国针灸, 2020, 40(10): 1123-1127.
4.	Ma Y, Dong M, Zhou K, et al. Publication trends in acupuncture research: a 20-year bibliometric analysis based on PubMed. PLoS One, 2016, 11(12): e0168123.
5.	Long Y, Wang X, Xiao W, et al. Use and reporting of risk of bias tools in 825 systematic reviews of acupuncture: a cross-sectional study. Acupunct Med, 2021, 39(4): 318-326.
6.	Marshall IJ, Marshall R, Wallace BC, et al. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 109: 30-41.
7.	Fox DM. Evidence and health policy: using and regulating systematic reviews. Am J Public Health, 2017, 107(1): 88-92.
8.	Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 69: 225-234.
9.	丁泓帆, 吴琼芳, 杨楠, 等. 评估系统评价偏倚风险的ROBISIS工具实例解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(1): 115-121.
10.	Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71.
11.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
12.	高亚, 刘明, 杨珂璐, 等. 系统评价报告规范: PRISMA2020与PRISMA 2009的对比分析与实例解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2021, 21(5): 606-616.
13.	徐蕴, 李尚, 汤大朋, 等. 中国科学引文数据库针灸期刊发表的Meta分析文献质量评价. 中国针灸, 2019, 39(11): 1247-1253.
14.	Liu Y, Zhang R, Huang J, et al. Reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture. PLoS One, 2014, 9(11): e113172.
15.	Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2700.
16.	Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n160.
17.	Vu-Ngoc H, Elawady SS, Mehyar GM, et al. Quality of flow diagram in systematic review and/or meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2018, 13(6): e0195955.
18.	Zabor EC, Reddy CA, Tendulkar RD, et al. Logistic regression in clinical studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2021, S0360-3016(21): 02646-8.
19.	Hind D, Booth A. Do health technology assessments comply with QUOROM diagram guidance. An empirical study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 49.
20.	Ma B, Qi GQ, Lin XT, et al. Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions published in Chinese journals. J Altern Complement Med, 2012, 18(9): 813-817.
21.	Sun X, Zhou X, Yu Y, et al. Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer's disease before and after PRISMA introduction. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018, 18(1): 154.
22.	Liu H, Zhou X, Yu G, et al. The effects of the PRISMA statement to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for patients with heart failure. Int J Nurs Pract, 2019, 25(3): e12729.
23.	Hardt JL, Metzendorf MI, Meerpohl JJ. Surgical trials and trial registers: a cross-sectional study of randomized controlled trials published in journals requiring trial registration in the author instructions. Trials, 2013, 14: 407.
24.	Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1. 0, 2020. Available at:http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.
25.	Lam MT, McDiarmid M. Increasing number of databases searched in systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 1994 and 2014. J Med Libr Assoc, 2016, 104(4): 284-289.
26.	李青, 夏芸, 牟钰洁, 等. 国内中文期刊发表的中医药系统综述和Meta分析文献质量再评价. 北京中医药大学学报(中医临床版), 2012, 19(3): 28-33.

1. White AR, Rampes H, Liu JP, et al. Acupuncture and related interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014, (1): CD000009.
2. 思金华, 赵晨, 刘妮波, 等. 基于SCIE和GoPubMed的针灸学文献统计分析. 中国针灸, 2015, 35(12): 1309-1314.
3. 王锐卿, 吕九亨, 贾春生. 海外针灸对国内针灸的启示与思考. 中国针灸, 2020, 40(10): 1123-1127.
4. Ma Y, Dong M, Zhou K, et al. Publication trends in acupuncture research: a 20-year bibliometric analysis based on PubMed. PLoS One, 2016, 11(12): e0168123.
5. Long Y, Wang X, Xiao W, et al. Use and reporting of risk of bias tools in 825 systematic reviews of acupuncture: a cross-sectional study. Acupunct Med, 2021, 39(4): 318-326.
6. Marshall IJ, Marshall R, Wallace BC, et al. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 109: 30-41.
7. Fox DM. Evidence and health policy: using and regulating systematic reviews. Am J Public Health, 2017, 107(1): 88-92.
8. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 69: 225-234.
9. 丁泓帆, 吴琼芳, 杨楠, 等. 评估系统评价偏倚风险的ROBISIS工具实例解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(1): 115-121.
10. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71.
11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
12. 高亚, 刘明, 杨珂璐, 等. 系统评价报告规范: PRISMA2020与PRISMA 2009的对比分析与实例解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2021, 21(5): 606-616.
13. 徐蕴, 李尚, 汤大朋, 等. 中国科学引文数据库针灸期刊发表的Meta分析文献质量评价. 中国针灸, 2019, 39(11): 1247-1253.
14. Liu Y, Zhang R, Huang J, et al. Reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture. PLoS One, 2014, 9(11): e113172.
15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2700.
16. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n160.
17. Vu-Ngoc H, Elawady SS, Mehyar GM, et al. Quality of flow diagram in systematic review and/or meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2018, 13(6): e0195955.
18. Zabor EC, Reddy CA, Tendulkar RD, et al. Logistic regression in clinical studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2021, S0360-3016(21): 02646-8.
19. Hind D, Booth A. Do health technology assessments comply with QUOROM diagram guidance. An empirical study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 49.
20. Ma B, Qi GQ, Lin XT, et al. Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions published in Chinese journals. J Altern Complement Med, 2012, 18(9): 813-817.
21. Sun X, Zhou X, Yu Y, et al. Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer's disease before and after PRISMA introduction. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018, 18(1): 154.
22. Liu H, Zhou X, Yu G, et al. The effects of the PRISMA statement to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for patients with heart failure. Int J Nurs Pract, 2019, 25(3): e12729.
23. Hardt JL, Metzendorf MI, Meerpohl JJ. Surgical trials and trial registers: a cross-sectional study of randomized controlled trials published in journals requiring trial registration in the author instructions. Trials, 2013, 14: 407.
24. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1. 0, 2020. Available at:http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.
25. Lam MT, McDiarmid M. Increasing number of databases searched in systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 1994 and 2014. J Med Libr Assoc, 2016, 104(4): 284-289.
26. 李青, 夏芸, 牟钰洁, 等. 国内中文期刊发表的中医药系统综述和Meta分析文献质量再评价. 北京中医药大学学报(中医临床版), 2012, 19(3): 28-33.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Reporting quality and its influencing factors of literature screening results for systematic reviews on acupuncture

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content