Research on the overlap between Chinese systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

LAN Hui ¹ , REN Mengjuan ¹ , SUN Yajia ¹ , WU Shouyuan ¹ , LIU Yunlan ¹ , WANG Ping ² ,  LIU Xingrong ¹ ,  CHEN Yaolong ^1,2,3,4,5,6

1. School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
2. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
3. Institute of Health Data Science, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
4. WHO Collaborating Center for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
5. Cochrane China Collaboration Network Lanzhou University Branch Center, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
6. GRADE Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

LIU Xingrong, Email: liuxr@lzu.edu.cn; CHEN Yaolong, Email: chenyaolong21@163.com

Keywords：

Systematic review; Cochrane review; Stroke; Overlap

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202304092

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To investigate the extent of overlap between Chinese systematic reviews (SRs) and Cochrane SRs in the field of stroke. Methods The CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect Chinese SRs and Cochrane SRs in the field of stroke published from 2012 to 2022. By extracting population (P), intervention (I), comparison (C), and outcome (O) of all interventional SRs in the stroke field to analyse the extent of overlap of SRs. The basic information and research information of SRs with overlapping PICOs were further extracted to conduct descriptive analysis. Results A total of 1 303 SRs were included, involving 1 192 Chinese SRs and 111 Cochrane SRs in the field of stroke. The overlapping analysis found that 128 Chinese SRs overlapped with 29 (26.1%) of the 111 Cochrane SRs. Most (127/128, 99.2%) Chinese SRs were published later than Cochrane SRs. The year of publication of overlapping SRs showed a trend of increasing year by year. Conclusion The SR work carried out by scholars in China has the problem of overlapping studies that cannot be ignored, and the lack of strict regulation and guidance in methods such as registration, protocol writing, and literature search has resulted in a great waste of resources. It is necessary to further strengthen regulatory constraints and guidance, adhere to problem orientation and quality awareness, strengthen SR training, and reduce overlapping research.

Citation： LAN Hui, REN Mengjuan, SUN Yajia, WU Shouyuan, LIU Yunlan, WANG Ping, LIU Xingrong, CHEN Yaolong. Research on the overlap between Chinese systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023, 23(12): 1434-1441. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202304092 Copy

1.	Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Barbui C. What is a Cochrane review. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci, 2011, 20(3): 231-233.
2.	汤胜蓝, 刘晓云, Dale H, 等. 系统评价是发展中国家卫生系统循证研究的有效工具吗. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(6): 600-604.
3.	Bero L, Rennie D, The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA, 1995, 274(24): 1935-1938.
4.	Higgins J, Thomas J. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). 2022.
5.	Naudet F, Schuit E, Ioannidis JPA. Overlapping network meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. Int J Epidemiol, 2017, 46(6): 1999-2008.
6.	Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ, 2013, 347: f4501.
7.	Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q, 2016, 94(3): 485-514.
8.	World Health Organization. WHO reveals leading causes of death and disability worldwide: 2000-2019. 2020.
9.	《中国脑卒中防治报告》编写组. 《中国脑卒中防治报告2020》概要. 中国脑血管病杂志, 2022, 19(2): 136-144.
10.	刘乐, 余超, 廖逸文, 等. 1990-2019年中国缺血性脑卒中疾病负担变化分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2022, 22(9): 993-998.
11.	王家莹, 王俊峰, 承诗琪, 等. 中医药系统评价/Meta分析19年发展及现状分析. 中医杂志, 2017, 58(11): 919-925,前插1.
12.	Katsura M, Kuriyama A, Tada M, et al. High variability in results and methodological quality among overlapping systematic reviews on the same topics in surgery: a meta-epidemiological study. Br J Surg, 2021, 108(12): 1521-1529.
13.	袁婷, 熊俊, 杨骏, 等. 基于文献计量学探讨针灸PROSPERO系统评价/Meta分析注册现状. 江西中医药, 2021, 52(2): 53-60.
14.	方程, 邓巍, 樊景春, 等. 系统评价与Meta分析的注册平台简介. 同济大学学报(医学版), 2019, 40(3): 380-387.
15.	McNutt M. Reproducibility. Science, 2014, 343(6168): 229.
16.	王露, 张海龙, 张东, 等. 中药治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重系统评价/Meta分析的质量评价. 中国老年学杂志, 2021, 41(14): 2968-2972.
17.	郑辛甜, 何小军, 邵菊芳, 等. 《中华急诊医学杂志》发表的系统评价/Meta分析的质量评价. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2016, 25(9): 1216-1218.
18.	刘秋燕, 张焕, 王玉龙, 等. 应用AMSTAR声明评价通心络疗效及安全性系统评价的文献方法学质量的报告. 世界科学技术-中医药现代化, 2015, 17(7): 1341-1348.
19.	Hacke C, Nunan D. Discrepancies in meta-analyses answering the same clinical question were hard to explain: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 119: 47-56.
20.	Useem J, Brennan A, LaValley M, et al. Systematic differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses on the same topic: a matched pair analysis. PLoS One, 2015, 10(12): e0144980.
21.	Trespidi C, Barbui C, Cipriani A. Why it is important to include unpublished data in systematic reviews. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci, 2011, 20(2): 133-135.
22.	Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0. 1. 2008.
23.	唐旭, 任路影, 李亦梅. 针刺治疗颈源性头痛疗效: 更新的系统评价. 中国疼痛医学杂志, 2017, 23(11): 830-836.

1. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Barbui C. What is a Cochrane review. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci, 2011, 20(3): 231-233.
2. 汤胜蓝, 刘晓云, Dale H, 等. 系统评价是发展中国家卫生系统循证研究的有效工具吗. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(6): 600-604.
3. Bero L, Rennie D, The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA, 1995, 274(24): 1935-1938.
4. Higgins J, Thomas J. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). 2022.
5. Naudet F, Schuit E, Ioannidis JPA. Overlapping network meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. Int J Epidemiol, 2017, 46(6): 1999-2008.
6. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ, 2013, 347: f4501.
7. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q, 2016, 94(3): 485-514.
8. World Health Organization. WHO reveals leading causes of death and disability worldwide: 2000-2019. 2020.
9. 《中国脑卒中防治报告》编写组. 《中国脑卒中防治报告2020》概要. 中国脑血管病杂志, 2022, 19(2): 136-144.
10. 刘乐, 余超, 廖逸文, 等. 1990-2019年中国缺血性脑卒中疾病负担变化分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2022, 22(9): 993-998.
11. 王家莹, 王俊峰, 承诗琪, 等. 中医药系统评价/Meta分析19年发展及现状分析. 中医杂志, 2017, 58(11): 919-925,前插1.
12. Katsura M, Kuriyama A, Tada M, et al. High variability in results and methodological quality among overlapping systematic reviews on the same topics in surgery: a meta-epidemiological study. Br J Surg, 2021, 108(12): 1521-1529.
13. 袁婷, 熊俊, 杨骏, 等. 基于文献计量学探讨针灸PROSPERO系统评价/Meta分析注册现状. 江西中医药, 2021, 52(2): 53-60.
14. 方程, 邓巍, 樊景春, 等. 系统评价与Meta分析的注册平台简介. 同济大学学报(医学版), 2019, 40(3): 380-387.
15. McNutt M. Reproducibility. Science, 2014, 343(6168): 229.
16. 王露, 张海龙, 张东, 等. 中药治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重系统评价/Meta分析的质量评价. 中国老年学杂志, 2021, 41(14): 2968-2972.
17. 郑辛甜, 何小军, 邵菊芳, 等. 《中华急诊医学杂志》发表的系统评价/Meta分析的质量评价. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2016, 25(9): 1216-1218.
18. 刘秋燕, 张焕, 王玉龙, 等. 应用AMSTAR声明评价通心络疗效及安全性系统评价的文献方法学质量的报告. 世界科学技术-中医药现代化, 2015, 17(7): 1341-1348.
19. Hacke C, Nunan D. Discrepancies in meta-analyses answering the same clinical question were hard to explain: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 119: 47-56.
20. Useem J, Brennan A, LaValley M, et al. Systematic differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses on the same topic: a matched pair analysis. PLoS One, 2015, 10(12): e0144980.
21. Trespidi C, Barbui C, Cipriani A. Why it is important to include unpublished data in systematic reviews. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci, 2011, 20(2): 133-135.
22. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0. 1. 2008.
23. 唐旭, 任路影, 李亦梅. 针刺治疗颈源性头痛疗效: 更新的系统评价. 中国疼痛医学杂志, 2017, 23(11): 830-836.

Previous Article
Knowledge graph application in rare diseases: a scoping review
Next Article
Key questions on reporting of acupuncture network meta-analysis

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Research on the overlap between Chinese systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content