ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsDatabase including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched from inception to December 2016 to collect SRs/MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting and methodological qualities using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR tool.ResultsTwenty-seven SRs/MAs of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM were included in this overview. The average score of AMSTAR was 7.04. The worst score were the item 1 (26 studies didn't provide an ‘a priori’ design), item 4 (10 studies didn't provide whether the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?), item 10 and item 11 (15 studies didn't assess the likelihood of publication bias and the potential conflicts of interest). The PRISMA score ranged from 17.0 to 24.5. The main problems of reporting were protocol and registration, search, additional analyses and funding.ConclusionThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs/MAs of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes are not high.
ObjectiveTo systematically summarize and evaluate the existing evidence of Qishen Yiqi dropping pill (QSYQ) in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF), and to evaluate its quality. MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews/meta-analyses(SRs/MAs) related to objectives from inception to December 31, 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and quality of evidence of included SRs/MAs by using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic(ROBIS) scale, the list of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis(PRISMA), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ResultsThis overview included 17 SRs/MAs. The methodological quality, reporting quality, risk of bias, and quality of evidence for outcome measures of SRs/MAs were all unsatisfactory. All SRs/MAs were of low quality according to the results of the AMSTAR-2 assessment. And only a small number of SRs/MAs were assessed as low risk of bias based on the results of the ROBIS assessment. The evaluation results of the PRISMA checklist showed that the report quality of the 24 studies included was relatively complete. According to the GRADE system evaluation results, 94% of the 84 outcome indicators were low-quality and very low-quality evidence. Limitations were the main factors leading to their degradation, followed by publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision and indirectness. ConclusionAt present, QSYQ has good clinical efficacy in the treatment of CHF, but the standardization and scientificity of clinical research and secondary research reports are insufficient, resulting in low quality of clinical recommendations evidence. In the future, it is necessary to further standardize and improve the quality of clinical and secondary research.
ObjectiveTo overview the reporting and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis on acupuncture in the treatment of primary osteoporosis (POP).MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews/meta-analysis on acupuncture in the treatment of POP from inception to July 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the quality of systematic reviews. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) methodological quality score and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were used to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of the systematic reviews, along with the risk of homogeneity and publication bias.ResultsA total of 11 systematic reviews/meta-analysis were included and multiple evaluations of the radar plot showed that the quality average rank scored 7.68. The major problems in studies were lack of items registration, imperfect search strategies and selection bias and so on.ConclusionThe quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of acupuncture in the treatment of POP is insufficient, indicating that the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews should be further strengthened.
According to the evidence pyramid model, systematic review (SR)/meta-analysis (MA) is one of the essential sources with a high level of clinical evidence. A high-quality SR/MA can effectively guide clinical decision-making and practice. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for Chinese herbal medicines (PRISMA-CHM) were officially published in 2020. In this study, based on research cases, the features of PRISMA-CHM were interpreted in detail, so as to help domestic users accurately grasp the details of the reports, in order to improve the quality of the reports of SR/MA of traditional Chinese medicine.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews on efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen in treatment of diabetic foot.MethodsCNKI, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data, The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMbase databases were searched to collect systematic reviews or meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic foot from inception to November 17th, 2019. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then, AMSTAR 2 tool and PRISMA statement were used to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of included systematic reviews, and the outcome indicators were comprehensively analyzed.ResultsA total of 10 systematic reviews were included. The results of AMSTAR 2 suggested that 6 systematic reviews were of extremely low quality, 3 of low quality, and 1 of high quality. The PRISMA score ranged from 16.5 to 27. The results of the included systematic reviews showed that hyperbaric oxygen therapy might be superior to other interventions in ulcer healing rate and large amputation rate without increasing the risk of adverse events. ConclusionsThe existing systematic reviews/meta-analysis evidence shows that hyperbaric oxygen therapy may have certain curative effect on diabetic foot, however, its methodology and report quality evaluation are insufficient.
Objective To assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions published in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine by PRISMA guidelines, and to analyze its influencing factors. Methods The systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions were searched in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from its inception to 2011. The quality of the included reviews was assessed in accordance with the PRISMA checklist. Based on the degree of conformity with each criterion of PRISMA, the reviews were scored as “1”, “0.5” or “0” orderly. The data were put into Excel, and the Meta-analyst software was used for statistical analysi. Results Among all literature in the volume 11 (95) of the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from 2001 to 2011, a total of 379 studies were included, and the number of publication showed a yearly rising trend. The PRISMA scale score ranged from 8.5 to 26 (X±SD) was 19.97±3.15. Among all studies, 25 (6.60%) scored 21-27 points, which were regarded as the complete reporting; 226 (59.63%) scored 15-21 points, regarded as relatively complete reporting; and 128 (33.77%) scored less than 15 points, regarded as serious lack of information. The results of stratified analysis showed that, both the issue of PRISMA and fund support could improve the reporting quality, with a significant difference (Plt;0.05); and authors more than 3, authors from universities, and authors from more than 2 institutions could improve the reporting quality, but without a significant difference (Pgt;0.05). Conclusion The overall reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine is poor, and it is influenced by the factors of protocol and registration, risk of bias across studies, other analyses, and fund support, which have to be taken seriously. The reasonable utilization of the PRISMA checklist will improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses.
Living systematic reviews (LSR) represent an evolving methodology for systematic review that is continuously updated to incorporate new evidence in a timely manner, ensuring that healthcare professionals and policymaker shave access to the most last information to make optimal decisions. The global publication of LSR has been a rapid increase. But the quality of reporting remains to be enhanced. In 2024, the PRISMA-LSR working group, in conjunction with the characteristics of LSR to form the reporting standards for living systematic reviews, which plays a significant role in promoting the transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of LSR. It has been published in the BMJ journal. This article interpreted PRISMA-LSR with representative examples, aiming to provide a reference for the standardization of LSR by domestic scholars.
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.
The selection of outcome measurement instruments (OMI) is a prerequisite for accurately collecting health outcome data. Conducting a systematic review of OMI can provide an important reference for researchers and practitioners to select the most appropriate OMI. In order to improve the reporting quality of the systematic review of OMI, foreign researchers published the PRISMA-COSMIN reporting guideline in the J Clin Epidemiol in June 2024. This article introduces the research team, development process, and items of the reporting guideline, and analyzes the items with examples. We hope our attempt could help domestic researchers improve the overall quality of OMI systematic reviews.
ObjectiveTo carry out a retrospective study of the reporting quality and current situation of the systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) in pediatric field in China, as well as compliance with the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. MethodsSeven core Chinese pediatric journals were hand-searched. Two reviewers extracted data independently using predesigned data extraction form, crosschecked data, and discussed to solve discrepancy. The PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality respectively, and subgroup analysis was conducted by different total cites and different published time. SPSS 22.0 was used to for statistical analysis. Percentage was used to describe categorical data and Chi-square test was used to compare the difference among groups. ResultsA total of 157 SRs/MA were included. The proportion of SRs/MA related to interventions was the biggest (61.1%, 96 SRs/MA). (1) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions in the PRISMA checklist was better:the coincidence rate of twenty entries was above 50%; (2) The coincidence rate of observational SRs/MA in the MOOSE guidelines was not so good:the coincidence rate of 15 entries was less than 50%, even some of them were less than 20%. There were no significant difference between different total cites (≤5 vs. > 5) in PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. (3) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions had been improved to some extent in most of items after the PRISMA guidelines published, and the differences were statistically significant respectively in No. 8, 19, 20, and 23 (P≤0.05). ConclusionsThe number of SRs/MA published in the pediatric journals in China is increasing generally, the coincidence rate of SRs/MAs related to interventions have been obviously improved after the PRISMA guidelines published, and it's better than the coincidence rate of observational SRs/MAs in MOOSE guidelines. In a word, we should pay more attention to the quality of SRs/MAs, but not just the number.