Primary liver cancer is the sixth most common malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) constitutes the majority of primary liver cancer cases. The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was introduced to standardize the lexicon, acquisition, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of imaging results in patients at increased risk for HCC. LI-RADS allows effective categorization of focal liver lesions, and has been applied in the full clinical spectrum of HCC from diagnosis, biological behavior characterization, prognosis prediction, to treatment response assessment. This review aimed to summarize the recent applications of CT/MRI LI-RADS in the diagnosis, biological behavior characterization and prognosis prediction of HCC, discuss current challenges and shed light on potential future directions.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals in 2017.MethodsCBM, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were searched for articles published in 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT).ResultsOne hundred and seven clinical practice guidelines were included and a total reporting rate of 34.8%±0.1% in RIGHT. Among the seven domains of RIGHT, field on basic information had the highest reporting rate (56.8%) and fields on review and quality assurance had the lowest reporting rate (9.3%).The average reporting rate of RIGHT items of Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) articles was lower than non-CSCD [MD=−0.73, 95%CI (−0.78, −0.68)] articles. The average reporting rates of RIGHT items differed between Chinese Medical Association (CMA) journal articles and non-CMA journal articles [MD=2.30, 95%CI (2.26, 2.34)]. The average reporting rates of RIGHT items was lower in guidelines established by associations or institutes [MD=−3.78, 95%CI (−3.83, −3.73)], and was higher reported in Chinese medicine guidelines [MD=21.94, 95%CI (21.91, 21.97)].ConclusionsThe reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in journals of mainland China in 2017 is low in general, especially in fields such as review and quality assurance, funding and declaration and management of interests and other information. To improve this phenomena, it is suggested that guideline developers report the guidelines rigorously with international standard.
Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in seven military medical journals. Methods Seven journals in 2007, including Medical Journal of Chinese People’s Liberation Army, Journal of South Medical University, Journal of Second Military Medical University, Journal of Third Military Medical University, Journal of Fourth Military Medical University, Bulletin of the Academy of Military of Medical Sciences and Academic Journal of PLA Postgraduate Medical School, were handsearched. We identified RCTs labeled “random” and assessed the quality of these reports using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement. Results We identified 99 RCTs, but found an incorrect randomized method was used in 6 RCTs. According to the items in the CONSORT statement in 93 RCTs, 62 (66.7%) RCTs described baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in each group. Sixteen (17.2%) RCTs mentioned the method of random sequence generation, with 5 (5.4%) using a computer allocation. Only 1 RCT had adequate allocation concealment. Only 9 (9.7%) RCTs used blinding, with 2 mentioning blinding, 1 using single blinding and 6 described as double-blind (2 were correct). Zero (0%) reported the sample size calculation and 1 RCT reported the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Conclusion The reporting quality of RCTs in seven journals is poor. The CONSORT statement should be used to standardize the reporting of RCTs.
Digital health technology implementation has grown rapidly in recent years. To standardize the quality of digital health implementation research and increase the transparency and integrity of reporting, Perrin published iCHECK-DH: guidelines and checklist for the reporting on digital health implementations in 2023. This article interprets the contents of the list with a view to improving the reporting quality of digital implementation studies to develop more effective digital health interventions and achieve better health outcomes.
Objective The aim of this study is to construct reporting standards for acupuncture network meta-analysis, providing guidance to enhance the quality of evidence reported in acupuncture therapy research. Methods A Delphi questionnaire was developed based on the preliminary research and literature findings, 20 experts were selected for correspondence to determine the final checklists of items, and then finalized the list of report items. Results A total of two rounds of Delphi questionnaires were made. The expert positivity coefficient (100%), the expert familiarity (0.80) and the expert authority (0.83) were the same in both rounds, the Kendall's coordination coefficients were 0.117 (P<0.001) and 0.332 (P<0.001), respectively, which ultimately led to the formation of the 7 fields of title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and other, including 23 specific items of the acupuncture-related therapies NMA standards. Conclusion The PRINMA-A statement will help to improve the reporting quality of evidence on acupuncture-related therapies, promote the dissemination and translation of evidence on acupuncture-related therapies.
The Standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015 is a revision of the STARD 2003 on the checklist and flow chart, on the basis of the new evidences of potential bias and applicability, to better guide the application of diagnostic test in clinical practices. Currently, the interpretation and application in China is still based on STARD 2003. This review will describe the application status of the original version and introduce the updated standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy 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.
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.
Implementation science is a relatively emergent and growing research area. Implementation research can assist to transform what is possible in theory to reality in practice and address the challenge of implementing proven interventions in the real world. Implementation research has a wide range of usages and complex research problems, so appropriate research methods, designs, and outcomes variables are required to address different research objectives. To better conduct implementation research, this paper systematically introduces the research designs, outcome variables, and reporting guideline of the implementation research in health care, based on the purposes and research questions of implementation research.