Objective To collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, so as to provide support for the standardized publish and spread of those guidelines. Methods Such databases as Ovid MEDLINE (1996-2010) and EMbase (till April, 2010) were searched with the terms of “guideline”, “report”, “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” to collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The irrelevant literatures (e.g. systematic review of a specific disease, clinical guideline for a certain disease, and other literatures focusing on the methodology of systematic review without mentioning reporting guideline) were excluded by reading the abstracts and titles, and then the further verification was done after the full-texts had been read. The contents about how to report a systematic review or meta-analyses were extracted from the included studies which were classified by its form of the original research (e.g. randomized controlled trial, observational study, diagnostic trial, etc.). Results Primary search ended up with 285 literatures, and 26 literatures of which were included. Among the included literatures about the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, eight were about RCTs, two about non-RCTs, two about observational study, no literature about diagnostic trial, one about animal experiment, two about report searching strategy, five about quality assessment, six about the influence on quality, and the other two about the update of guidelines. Conclusion The report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considerable in number, among which the QUOROM and its updated version PRISMA are relatively mature and widely applied. Report guidelines are beneficial to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and the report guideline focusing on specific field is needs to be formulate.
Objective To undertake a preliminary study of the concept and approach of patient value and preference and to learn how to understand and elicit patient preference in the light of evidence-based medicine so as to promote evidence-based practice and improve the relationship between clinicians and patients. Methods The searching key words were developed and pertinent data were retrospectively retrieved for the years of 1992-2002. MEDLINE and CBMdisc were searched along with handsearching 9 Chinese medical journals and 4 evidence-based medicine books. Data were scanned and analyzed. Results A total of 2 646 related articles were identified, most of which were found in MEDLINE (2 403), followed by CBMdisc (185) and the journals (58). Currently there is no original article to study in this field from a point of view of evidence-based medicine in China. Conclusion Patient value and preference have been emphasized in the approach of evidence-based medicine and it is a worthwhile topic for us to explore.
Backgroud Chronic hepatitis is the major infectious disease of liver. There is no effective drug for it up to now. Clinical trials have showed that glycyrrhizin have potentional effective for chronic hepatitis. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness, safety and economics of glycyrrhizin for chronic hepatitis B and C. Search strategy The search terms include glycyrrhizin and its products’ name, chronic hepatitis and chronic carrier status. The thais registers of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, and the central database of The Cochrane Library as well as MEDLINE, EMBASE and Chinese Biomedical CD Database were searched from their date of inception onward. And the free Internet search was operated to find ongoing and unpublished researches. Twenty Chinese medical journals and relevant academic conference proceedings have been searched by manual method. The reference lists of identified documents were checked as the complementary search. Inclusion criteria All randomized trials that tested glycryyhizin for chronic hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus infection were included in this review. Method of the review According to the principle of Cochrane systematic review, selection of thai for inclusion, assessment of methodological quality, data extraction and data syntheses were conducted by two reviewers.