Objective To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for chlamydia trachomatis (CT). Methods The diagnosis trials on EIA for CT were searched in the databases such as PubMed (1966 to Dec. 2011), The Cochrane Library (Issue 12, 2011), EMbase (1974 to Dec. 2011), CNKI (1994 to Dec. 2011), VIP (1989 to Dec. 2011) and CBM (1978 to Dec. 2011), meanwhile the manual and other retrieves were also conducted. Two reviewers evaluated the quality of the included trials according to the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS), and then meta-analysis was performed using Meta Analyst and RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 17 trials involving 9 461 participants were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the weighted sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and the area under SROC curve were 0.847 (95%CI 0.571 to 0.995), 0.964 (95%CI 0.890 to 0.994), 25.972 (95%CI 18.587 to 36.293), 0.156 (95%CI 0.114 to 0.212), 228.875 (95%CI 127.136 to 412.028), and 0.953, respectively. Conclusion EIA for CT has higher sensitivity and specificity, so EIA is recommended for preliminary screening CT and diagnosing the highly suspected cases or the patients without obvious signs and symptoms.
Objective To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of intervention published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, so as to provide evidence for improving the domestic methodological quality. Methods The systematic reviews or meta-analyses of intervention published from 2001 to 2011 were identified by searching the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by AMSTAR scale. The Excel software was used to input data, and Mata-Analyst software was used to conduct statistical analysis. Results A total of 379 studies were included. The average score of AMSTAR was 6.15±1.35 (1.5-9.5 point). Just some items of AMSTAR scale were influenced by the following features of included studies: publication date, funded or not, number of author, author’s unit, and number of author’s unit. The total AMSTAR score of studies published after 2008 was higher than those published before 2008 (P=0.02), but the improvement of methodological quality was limited. While the total AMSTAR score of studies published by 3 or more than 3 authors were higher than those published by 2 or less than 2 authors (P=0.04). Conclusion The methodological quality of the included studies published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics is uneven. Although the methodological quality improves somewhat after the publication of AMSTAR scale, there is no big progress, so it still needs to be further improved.
Objective To survey the current situation of the systematic review (SR)/ meta-analysis (MA) related to interventions published in the Chinese medical journals entitled with evidence-based. Methods According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (2001.1 to 2011.12), the Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine (2001.1 to 2011.12), the Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Pediatrics (2006.1 to 2011.12) and the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine (2008.1 to 2011.12) were searched for SRs/MAs related to interventions. Two reviewers extracted data independently using predesigned a data extraction form, crosschecked data, and discussed to solve discrepancy. Excel software was used to for statistical analysis. Results A total of 487 SRs/MAs were included. 379 (77.82%) SRs/MAs were published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 70 (14.38%) in the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 30 (6.17%) in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics, and 8 (1.63%) in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine. The number of SRs/MAs published generally increased during 2001 to 2011. The number of author of SRs/MAs was 5±2, the number of studies that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SRs/MAs varied from 1 to 129 (median: 8), involving 20 diseases. 83 (17.04%) SRs/MAs focused on neoplasms, 64 (17.04%) on diseases of the circulatory system, and 54 (11.09%) on diseases of the genitourinary system. 82.75% of the included 487 SRs/MAs assessed the methodological quality of included RCTs. 44 (9.03%) SRs/MAs mentioned the methods of quality assessment, without reporting the results. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias was the most frequently used for evaluation (314 SRs/MAs, 64.48%). Conclusion The number of SRs/MAs related to interventions published in the journals entitled with evidence-based is increasing generally and their topics are extensive. However, further studies should be improved in the aspects of selecting and applying the quality assessment criteria of randomized controlled trials.
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.