ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of cross-sectional surveys about Chinese medicine syndrome in a population at potential risk of cerebrovascular diseases. Methods The CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and PubMed databases were electronically searched to collect cross-sectional surveys about Chinese medicine syndromes in a population at potential risk of cerebrovascular diseases from inception to December, 2022. The methodological quality was assessed using the JBI scale. Results A total of 105 studies were included. The average reporting rate of JBI was 52.06%, and the items with the highest scores included "sufficient coverage of the identified sample in data analysis" (100%), "description of study subjects and setting" (92.38%), and "using valid methods for the identification of the condition" (86.67%). Items with the lowest scores included "adequate sample size" (13.33%), "adequate response rate or low response rate managed appropriately" (14.29%), and "study participants recruited in an appropriate way" (20.95%). Subgroup analysis suggested that type of publication and number of implementation centers were potential factors influencing methodology quality (P<0.05). Conclusion The methods essential to a cross-sectional survey such as sampling, sample size calculation and handling with the response rate, and the syndrome diagnosis scales specific to Chinese medicine require further improvement.
Objective To assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion. Methods We searched CNKI database to collect meta-analysis published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion up to 2015. Methodological quality assessment was carried out using AMSTAR tool, and quality assessment was carried out by PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was performed by using SPSS 19.0 software. Results A total of 31 meta-analyses were enrolled. Among all the 31 meta-analyses, the first authors came from 19 institutions, and 21 meta-analysis were supported by fundings. All meta-analyses were about the evaluations of acupuncture intervention, involving 10 disease systems (ICD-10) and sub-health. The mean score of the methodological assessment was 7.42±1.13. In addition, the mean score of reporting quality was 18.79±2.04. Conclusion The meta-analyses published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion have high quality on methodology as well as reporting. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, the above results are needed to be further assessed by more studies.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus of chronic heart failure domestically and abroad.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases, and related websites were searched to collect guidelines and expert consensus on chronic heart failure published from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2020. Four reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of the guidelines and expert consensus with the AGREE Ⅱ tool after the consistency evaluation training.ResultsA total of 17 studies were included (consisting of 11 English and 6 Chinese studies). The recommended levels were B level (recommend after modification) for 10 studies and C level (not recommended) for 7 studies. The AGREE Ⅱ standardized mean scores for various fields were 69.61% (scope and purpose), 34.20% (stakeholder involvement), 33.13% (rigor of development), 84.53% (clarity and presentation), 42.40% (applicability), and 37.09% (editorial independence). The methodological quality of English guidelines was generally high (level B for 10 and level C for 1), while all scores of Chinese guidelines or consensus in the 6 fields were mostly lower than the average (level C for 6).ConclusionsThe guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure requires further improvement in terms of stakeholder involvement and rigor of development. It should develop standards and methods to improve the quality for Chinese guidelines and expert consensus to better serve clinical practice.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of meta-analysis published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing.MethodsCNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect meta-analysis which published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing from inception to December 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and the reporting quality by AMSTAR scale and PRISMA statement. Statistical analysis was then performed by using SPSS 19.0 software.ResultsA total of 53 meta-analyses were included, which involved 7 disease systems and sub-health status. The mean score of the methodological assessment by AMSTAR was 7.75±1.32, including 9 high-quality papers (17.0%), 41 middle-quality papers (77.4%), and 3 low-quality papers (5.6%). The mean score of the reporting quality assessment by PRISMA was 22.5±3.08, including 39 relatively complete papers (73.6%), 11 papers with certain defects (20.8%), and 3 papers with serious defects (5.6%).ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing deserves further improvement.
Objective To evaluate reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field in China. Methods CNKI database was searched for systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field from the establishment date to December 2011. Two reviewers independently identified the literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then extracted the data using Excel software. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively. Results A total of 63 systematic reviews or meta-analyses involving 21 systematic reviews and 42 meta-analyses were identified. These articles were published on 13 journals such as The Chinese Nursing Research, the Chinese Journal of Nursing, and the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The deficiencies of methodological quality mainly contained literature search, heterogeneity handling, recognition and assessment of publication bias. In addition, the deficiencies of reporting characteristics were reflected on incomplete reporting of literature search, quality assessment, risk of bias and results (some studies lacked forest plot, estimated value of pooled results, 95%CI or heterogeneity). Conclusion As a whole, the included reviews and meta-analyses have more or less flaws with regard to the quality of reporting and methodology based on the PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists. Focusing on the improvement of reporting and methodological quality of systematic review or meta-analysis in nursing field in China is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodology quality and report quality of the published systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of pediatric tuina domestically and abroad.MethodsCBM, VIP, CNKI, WanFang Data, PubMed, EMbase, and The Cochrane Library were electronically searched to collect published pediatric tuina SRs/MAs from inception to December 10th, 2018. The SRs/MAs which includes scale evaluation used AMSTAR2 and the PRISMA report quality evaluation tool to systematically review methodology, adopts Excel to carry out data collation and statistical analysis. ResultsA total of 18 studies (14 in Chinese and 4 in English) on the SRs/MAs of pediatric tuina were finally included. In terms of methodological quality, 6 studies were of low quality and 12 studies were of very low quality. All studies did not explain the reasons for adopting a particular research design type, and few of them explained the pre-plan, exclusion list, reasons and funding. In terms of report quality, 7 studies were relatively complete, 10 studies had certain defects and one study had serious defects. The existing problems were program and registration, comprehensive retrieval, information sources, financial support and so on. ConclusionsSRs/MAs of pediatric tuina have different degrees of issues in terms of methodological quality and report quality which still require further improvement and continuous strengthening.
ObjectiveTo analyze the reporting and methodological quality of tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals. MethodsThe CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases were electronically searched for meta-analyses of tranexamic acid from inception to August 12th, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and used AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA 2009 to assess the methodological and reporting quality of publications. ResultsA total of 68 meta-analyses were included. The identified meta-analyses required improvement for items 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 16 in the AMSTAR 2, and items 2, 5, 8, 12, 15, 17, 22, 24, and 27 in the PRISMA 2009 assessments, respectively. The methodological and reporting quality scores were positively correlated (rs=0.36, P=0.002). Linear regression analysis identified the mentioning of PRISMA and funding support as the independent factors potentially affecting the reporting quality score (P<0.05). ConclusionsBoth the methodological and reporting quality of the tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals require improvement.
At present, there are many items/checklists used to assess the methodological quality of animal studies. Yet, no tool has been specifically designed for assessing internal validity of animal studies. This articles introduce and interprets SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies in detail for Chinese scholars to accurately assess the methodological quality of animal studies when they develop systematic reviews on animal studies, so as to provide references for scientific design and implementation of animal studies.
Objective To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched by computer, and the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of corticosteroid hormone as an auxiliary means for the treatment of severe pneumonia which were published from establishment of the databases to October 25th, 2018 were searched. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to evaluate the quality of literature reports. Results A total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, all of which were non-Cochrane systematic reviews. In terms of methodological quality assessed by AMSTAR-2, there was no plan in all studies; only one study explained the reasons for inclusion in the study type; eight studies did not describe the dose and follow-up time of the intervention/control measures in detail; three studies did not indicate the evaluation tools and did not describe the risk bias; six studies did not explicitly examine publication bias. In terms of reporting quality assessed by PRISMA, all studies had no pre-registered study protocol or registration number; thirteen studies did not describe the specific amount of articles retrieved from each database; three studies did not present their retrieval strategies or excluded reasons in detail; no funding sources were identified in included studies; eight studies reported both whether the study was funded and whether there was a conflict of interest. Conclusions At present, there are many systematic review/meta-analysis studies on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia, and the overall quality of the study has been gradually improved. However, the common problems in the study are relatively prominent. The follow-up period and dose of intervention in the study of severe pneumonia are different, so the baseline is difficult to be unified. Suggestions: strengthening the training of researchers, standardize the research process, and report articles in strict accordance with the PRISMA statement; subgroup analysis being conducted according to the dose and duration of the hormone.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the current status and trend of methodological quality of multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of stroke treatments in Chinese Mainland.MethodsMulti-center RCTs of stroke treatments conducted in Chinese Mainland published in Chinese or English language from January 2000 to December 2019 were retrieved from seven databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Embase, China Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database, and Wanfang Database. The basic information was collected. Methodological items were referred to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. The definitions of Wade were used to assess the outcome measure.ResultsA total of 90 multi-center RCTs were included, of which 39 were published from 2000 to 2009, and 51 were published from 2010 to 2019. The total number of trials published from 2010 to 2019 was 1.31 times of that published from 2000 to 2009. The research subjects were ischemic stroke patients in 58.9% (53/90) of the RCTs, intracerebral hemorrhage patients in 14.4% (13/90) of the RCTs, and ischemic stroke patients as well as hemorrhagic stroke patients in 26.7% (24/90) of the RCTs. There were 55.6% (50/90) drug trials, and 44.4% (40/90) non-drug trials. There were statistically significant differences in the loss of visit report (P=0.005), primary and secondary outcome indicators report (P=0.027), and adverse reaction report (P=0.007) between the two periods; there was no statistically significant difference in reported adequate randomized methods (P=0.341), allocation concealment (P=0.611), blindness (P=0.551), used intentionality analysis (P=0.573), or follow-up time (P=0.061) between the two periods.ConclusionIn the past 20 years in Chinese Mainland, the quality of stroke treatment RCTs improves slowly, and more attention should be paid to develop the RCTs of true randomization, blinding, and better patient outcome measures.