A standardization study of Meta-analyses on nephropathy published in Chinese journals
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1426.2013.10.009
- VernacularTitle:中文期刊发表的肾脏病学Meta分析的规范性研究
- Author:
Jinyan LIU
;
Yuliang ZHAO
;
Qinghua ZHOU
;
Yumei WU
;
Shengguo ZHOU
;
Ling ZHANG
;
Ping FU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Meta-analysis;
Nephrology;
Chinese journals;
QUOROM Statement;
MOOSE Checklist
- From:
Chinese Journal of Internal Medicine
2013;52(10):833-837
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the standardization of Meta-analyses on nephropathy published in Chinese journals.Methods By searching in WANFANG,VIP,CNKI databases and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database(CBM) as well as related Chinese journals,eligible Meta-analyses were enrolled and analyzed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement and the MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) Checklist.Results A total of 217 Meta-analyses were enrolled with 166 on randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 51 on observational studies.Based on the PRSIMA Statement,of the 166 Meta-analyses on RCT,51.8％(86 papers) were found with the complete research hypothesis,13.9％ (23) with the literature screening flow chart,15.7％ (26) with the subgroup analysis,53.0％ (88) with the publication bias analysis and 28.3％ (47) with the sensitivity analysis.According to the MOOSE Checklist,of the 51 Meta-analyses on observational studies,only 9.8％ (5) had done the statistical stability calculation,54.9％ (28) with the outlook of application,45.1％ (23) with the limitation of the study,2.0％ (1) with the quantitative analysis on potential bias and 17.6％ (9) with the suggestion for future studies.Conclusions Unclear hypothesis,limited methodological description,lack of in-depth analysis on heterogeneity and bias are the common defects in Meta-analyses published in Chinese journals on nephrology.
