ObjectiveTo estimate the level and evolving pattern of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) burden from 1990 to 2019. MethodsThe related data of PUD from 1990 to 2019 were obtained from GBD 2019 database. The corresponding age-standardized rate, annual percentage change, average annual percentage change were calculated and analyzed by Excel and R software. ResultsThe global standardized prevalence of PUD was 99.4/100 000 (95%CI 83.9 to 117.5) in 2019, and decreased from 143.4/100 000 (95%CI 120.5 to 170.2) in 1990. The standardized disability-adjusted disease years (DALYs) rate was 74.4 (95%CI 69.0 to 81.9) in 2019. The estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) from 1990 to 2019 was −3.47% (95%CI −3.58 to −3.37), indicating that the standardized DALYs rate was declining. The prevalence and DALYs of PUD increased with age. The standardized DALYs rate was higher in males than in females in the same age group. Sociodemographic index (SDI) was negatively correlated with the standardized prevalence of PUD (R=−0.45, P<2.2e−16) and the standardized DALYs rate (R=−0.79, P<2.2e−16). ConclusionThe worldwide burden of PUD declined from 1990 to 2019, but the decline had begun to slow or pause in countries with better economic development levels.
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 (Plt;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 (Pgt;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.