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.
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 quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese medicine (TCM) formulated granules published in core journals in China. MethodsComputerized searches were conducted in CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM databases. The publicly published RCTs of TCM formulated granules were collected, with sources from Peking University Core, CSSCI and EI. The following information was extracted: including title, the first author, the journals name, type of disease, year of publication, and source of drug. The included studies were evaluated using the CONSORT extension for CHM formulas (CONSORT-CHM formulas 2017), which included 25 items from title, abstract and keywords, introduction, research methods, steps, results, discussion, and other information. ResultsA total of 125 papers were included, which mainly included digestive system diseases (n=25), respiratory system diseases (n=17), and circulatory system diseases (n=17). The results showed that the overall reporting quality of RCTs of TCM formulated granules was poor. After the publication of the CONSORT-CHM formulas 2017, the reporting quality of RCTs of TCM formulated granules had no significant changes, while some items were still reported with poor quality. For example, 42.2% of RCTs did not adequately report how to generate allocation sequence, 93.3% of RCTs did not adequately report allocation concealment, and 62.2% of RCTs did not adequately report how to solve the missing data. ConclusionThe quality of RCTs reports on TCM formula granules published in Chinese journals still needs to be improved. It is recommended that researchers, journals and reviewers attach importance to the application of CONSORT-CHM formula throughout the whole process of paper writing. In the future, more scientific and detailed requirements should be put forward for trial design and reporting standards in line with the characteristics of clinical trials of TCM formula granules.
Methodological quality and transferability will be important issues for the credibility and usefulness of both published studies and administrative methods for evaluating the socio-economic value of marketed medicines in China. This paper critically examines factors commonly contributing to, or inhibiting, the quality and transferability of socio-economic evidence of the value of medicines, with specific reference to the Chinese community. It discusses appropriate approaches to design, performance, and reporting of published economic evaluation studies, as well as guides on assessment of quality of economic evaluations and recommends two internationally established methods that may be suitable for training in this setting.
ObjectiveTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/Meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of transurethral procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MethodWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 12, 2014), Sciverse, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to December 2014 to collect SRs/MAs of transurethral procedure about BPH. Two reviewers independently screened literature and assessed the methodological and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs by AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. ResultsA total of 33 SRs/MAs were included. The results of qualitative analysis showed that:the main methodological weakness of included SRs/MAs included the lack of protocol, disappropriate conclusion formulation, the lack of publication bias assessment, and the lack of stating the conflict of interest. The average score of AMSTAR scale was 6.27±2.14. There were 11 items in PRISMA checklist with coincidence rate over 80%, 8 items between 50% to 80%, and 8 items less than 50%. ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of SR/MA of transurethral procedure for BHP is low, and that may decrease the reliability and value of results from SRs/MAs in the field. Future SRs/MAs should strictly follow the related reporting guidelines in order to improve the methodological and reporting quality, so as to provide more reliable evidence for clinical decision.
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 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.
In recent years, the application of qualitative evidence synthesis results in health and social care policy has increased, and assessment of the limitations of qualitative research methodologies is critical in ensuring the credibility of qualitative evidence synthesis results. However, currently commonly used assessment tools are not designed specifically for Cochrane systematic reviews or qualitative evidence synthesis, and most lack evidence-based development background. To address this gap, the Cochrane qualitative methodological limitations tool (CAMELOT) was created to provide authors with a standardized tool specifically designed to assess the limitations of qualitative research methodologies. Based on the operation guide of evidence-based evaluation tool and Delphi consensus survey method, this paper introduces the development process of CAMELOT and expounds its field contents in detail.
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.
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.