Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in -evidence-based- Chinese journalsReportar como inadecuado

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in -evidence-based- Chinese journals - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.

Systematic Reviews

, 3:58

First Online: 07 June 2014Received: 26 November 2013Accepted: 29 May 2014DOI: 10.1186-2046-4053-3-58

Cite this article as: Li, J., Ge, L., Ma, J. et al. Syst Rev 2014 3: 58. doi:10.1186-2046-4053-3-58


BackgroundThe number of systematic reviews SRs-meta-analyses MAs has increased dramatically in China over the past decades. However, evaluation of quality of reporting of systematic reviews published has not been undertaken. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs-MAs assessing efficacy and-or harms of clinical interventions published in -evidence-based- Chinese journals.

MethodsWeb-based database searches were conducted for the Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine, the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, the Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Pediatrics, and the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine. SRs-MAs assessing efficacy and-or harms of clinical interventions were included. The cut-off was December 31st 2011. The PRISMA statement was applied to assess the quality of reporting. Each item was assessed as follows: ‘Yes’ for total compliance, scored ‘1’; ‘partial’ for partial compliance, scored ‘0.5’; and ‘No’ for non-compliance, scored ‘0’. The review was considered to have major flaws if it received a total score of ≤15.0, minor flaws if it received a total score of 15.5 to 21.0, and minimal flaws if it received a total score 21.5 to 27.0. Odds ratios were used for binary variables, and the mean difference was used for continuous variables. Analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0 software.

ResultsOverall, 487 SRs-MAs were identified and assessed. The included reviews had medium quality with minor flaws based on PRISMA total scores range: 8.5–26.0; mean: 19.6 ± 3.3. The stratified analysis showed that SRs-MAs with more than 3 authors, from a university, hospital + university cooperation, multiple affiliations ≥2, and funding have significantly higher quality of reporting of SRs-MAs; 58% of the included reviews were considered to have minor flaws total score of 15.6 to 21.0. Only 9.6% of reviews were considered to have major flaws. Specific areas needing improvement in reporting include the abstract, protocol and registration, and characteristics of the search.

ConclusionsThe reporting of SRs published in -evidence-based- Chinese journals is poor and needs to be improved in order for reviews to be useful. SR authors should use the PRISMA checklist to ensure complete and accurate accounts of their SRs.

KeywordsChinese journal Evidence-based Meta-analyses Quality of reporting Systematic reviews AbbreviationsSRsSystematic reviews


PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

CJEBMChinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine

JEBMJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine

CJEBPChinese Journal of Evidence Based Pediatrics

EBCVMChinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine

OROdds ratio

CIConfidence interval

SDStandard deviation

MDMean difference.

Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article doi:10.1186-2046-4053-3-58 contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Jin-long Li, Long Ge contributed equally to this work.

Download fulltext PDF

Autor: Jin-long Li - Long Ge - Ji-chun Ma - Qiao-ling Zeng - Lu Yao - Ni An - Jie-xian Ding - Yu-hong Gan - Jin-hui Tian

Fuente: https://link.springer.com/

Documentos relacionados