Methodological quality of systematic reviews on orally administered Chinese herbal medicine published in Chinese between 2021 and 2022: A cross-sectional study.
10.1016/j.joim.2025.07.005
- Author:
Yue JIANG
1
;
Claire Chenwen ZHONG
2
;
Betty Huan WANG
3
;
Shan-Shan XU
3
;
Fai Fai HO
1
;
Ming Hong KWONG
3
;
Leonard HO
3
;
Joson Hao-Shen ZHOU
3
;
K C LAM
3
;
Jian-Ping LIU
4
;
Bao-Ting ZHANG
5
;
Vincent Chi Ho CHUNG
3
Author Information
1. School of Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin 999077, Hong Kong, China.
2. Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin 999077, Hong Kong, China. Electronic address: chenwenzhong@link.cuhk.edu.hk.
3. Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin 999077, Hong Kong, China.
4. Center for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China.
5. School of Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin 999077, Hong Kong, China. Electronic address: zhangbaoting@cuhk.edu.hk.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Chinese herbal medicine;
Clinical practice guideline;
Methodology;
Quality;
Randomized control trials;
Systematic review
- MeSH:
Cross-Sectional Studies;
Drugs, Chinese Herbal/administration & dosage*;
Systematic Reviews as Topic/standards*;
Humans;
China;
Administration, Oral;
Medicine, Chinese Traditional
- From:
Journal of Integrative Medicine
2025;23(5):492-501
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:This cross-sectional study assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) published in Chinese between Jan 2021 and Sep 2022.
METHODS:Chinese language CHM SRs were identified through literature searches across 3 international and 4 Chinese databases. Methodological quality was appraised using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2. Logistic regressions were used to explore associations between bibliographical characteristics and quality.
RESULTS:Analyses of methodological quality found that among the 213 sampled SRs, 69.5% were of critically low quality, 30.5% were of low quality, and none achieved high or moderate quality. Common shortcomings included the failure to identify the studies excluded from the analysis, failure to disclose funding sources, and limited evaluation of the potential impact of bias on conclusions. Logistic regressions revealed that SRs led by corresponding authors affiliated with universities or academic institutions tended to be of lower quality than SRs led by authors affiliated with hospitals or clinical facilities.
CONCLUSION:Recent Chinese language CHM SRs exhibited limited methodological quality, making them unlikely to support the development of clinical practice guidelines. Urgent initiatives are needed to enhance training for researchers, peer-reviewers and editors involved in the preparation and publication of SRs. Adoption of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines in Chinese language journals is crucial to improve the relevance of SRs for Chinese medicine development. Addressing deficiencies in methodology and reporting is essential for promoting evidence-based practices and informed clinical decisions in Chinese medicine. Please cite this article as: Jiang Y, Zhong CC, Wang BH, Xu SS, Ho FF, Kwong MH, Ho L, Zhou JHS, Lam KC, Liu JP, Zhang BT, Chung VCH. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on orally administered Chinese herbal medicine published in Chinese between 2021 and 2022: A cross-sectional study. J Integr Med. 2025; 23(5):492-501.
