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.
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.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of surgical meta-analyses published in English in 2014.MethodsAll meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in 2014 were selected from PubMed and EMbase. The characteristics of these meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological quality were assessed by the PRISMA and AMSTAR, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsA total of 197 meta-analyses covering 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR score (by items) were 22.2±2.4 and 7.8±1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with a R2 of 0.754. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors who had previously published meta-analysis was significantly higher in reporting and methodological quality than those who had not (P<0.001). Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these reporting (P<0.001) and methodological (P<0.001) quality between studies published in Q1 ranked journals and (Q2+Q3) ranked jounals. On multivariate analyses, region of origin (non-Asiavs. Asia), publishing experience of first authors (ever vs. never), rank of publishing journals (Q1 vs. Q2+Q3), and preregistration (presence vs. absence) were associated with better reporting and methodologic quality, independently.ConclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of current surgical meta-analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors' experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration may be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analysis, which deserves more attention from future meta-analysis reviewers.
Objective To systematically review the methodological quality of research on clinical prediction models of traditional Chinese medicine. Methods The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and SinoMed databases were electronically searched to collect literature related to the research on clinical prediction models of traditional Chinese medicine from inception to March 31, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies based on prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). Results A total of 113 studies on clinical prediction models of traditional Chinese medicine (79 diagnostic model studies and 34 prognostic model studies) were included. Among them, 111 (98.2%) studies were rated at high risk of bias, while 1 (0.9%) study was rated at low risk of bias and risk of bias of 1 (0.9%) study was unclear. The analysis domain was rated with the highest proportion of high risk of bias, followed by the participants domain. Due to the widespread lack of reporting of specific study information, risk of bias of a large number of studies was unclear in both predictors and outcome domain. Conclusion Most existing researches on clinical prediction models of traditional Chinese medicine show poor methodological quality and are at high risk of bias. Factors contributing to risk of bias include non-prospective data source, outcome definitions that include predictors, inadequate modeling sample size, inappropriate feature selection, inaccurate performance evaluation, and incorrect internal validation methods. Comprehensive methodological improvements on design, conduct, evaluation, and validation of modeling, as well as reporting of all key information of the models are urgently needed for future modeling studies, aiming to facilitate their translational application in medical 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.
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.
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 methodological quality of animal experiments published in high impact journals, in order to provide references for improving the quality of animal experiments.MethodsCSCD and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect intervening primordial animal experiments from 2014 to August, 2016. Four reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies by using SYRCLE tool.ResultsA total of 1 999 animal experiments were included. The cited frequency of more than 90% studies were ≤5 times, and of which 52.53% studies were zero. The results of SYRCLE evaluation showed that 54.55% of sub items rated as "low risk" were less than 30%. And 84.62% of them were less than 10%.ConclusionThere are defeet in methodological quality of animal experiments either domestic or abroad. The problems of domestic researches in implementation bias, measurement bias and loss of access bias are particularly obvious. The coincidence rates of "low risk" are much lower than those of abroad studies. Therefore, we suggest that it is necessary to take specific measures to popularize SYRCLE tool to effectively guide the development of animal experiments and improve the design and implementation of animal experiments.
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 characteristics, methodological and reporting qualities of systematic reviews on community interventions in China.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM databases were searched for studies of community interventions from inception to August 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological and reporting quality by AMSTAR tool and PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was performed by SPSS 20.0 software.ResultsA total of 18 systematic reviews of community interventions were included. The average AMSTAR score was 4.67±1.68, and all studies did not provide the list of included and excluded studies or a statement on conflict of interests. The average PRISMA score was 16.42±3.65, and over 50.0% of the included systematic reviews did not perform protocol and registration, search, additional analyses, risk of bias of included studies and funding.ConclusionsThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses of community interventions in China is insufficient. The combination of results, quality of individual research and the evaluation of publication bias should be paid more attention to improve methodological quality. The reporting of meta-analyses of community interventions in China should follow the PRISMA checklist.