Analysis of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis
10.3724/SP.J.1008.2014.01109
- Author:
Dan-Lu LIU
1
Author Information
1. The First Clinical College of Lanzhou University
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Diagnosis;
Endoscopic ultrasound;
Meta-analysis;
Status analysis;
Systematic review
- From:
Academic Journal of Second Military Medical University
2014;35(10):1109-1114
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To analyze the status of systematic review(SRs)/meta-analyses(MAs) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) diagnosis. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database from the starting to July, 2013 for related publications. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, SRs/MAs of EUS for diagnosis were collected. Articles were screened by two reviewers and the process of extraction was done by pre-designed table. Results A total of 72 SRs/MAs were included in the present paper. The number of papers ranged from one in 1998 to 16 in 2012. The fields of disease were mainly related to digestive system (54/72, 75.0%) and respiratory system (6/72, 8.3%). Most of the papers (65/72, 90.3%) were published in English and the rest (9.7%[7/72]) in Chinese. Totally 87. 5%(63/72) of the papers were published in journals indexed by Science Citation Index. The majority of papers (67/72, 93.1%) had their authors from the same country. The first authors of the included papers were mainly from China(23/72, 31.9%) and the United States (22/72, 30.6%), only with 5 studies done with international cooperation; and 77.8% (56/72) completed by one institution (such as a hospital, a college or an institute). The characteristics table of included studies (61/72, 84.7%) and forest plot (52/72, 72.2%) were most frequently used. The number of references in English literature was about 5 times that of Chinese one, and the English papers had more references of the latest five years than the Chinese one. The average cites of SRs/MAs was only 36.3 in our study. It was found that 54.2% (39/72) SRs/MAs used QUADAS standard for assessing the quality of original research, which was recommended by Cochrane Handbook 5.1; there were still 38.9% (28/ 72) SRs/MAs did not report their quality assessment tool. No included Chinese paper reported fund support. Conclusion SRs/ MAs of EUS for diagnosis is increasing on an annual basis. International cooperation should be improved among researchers for SRs/MAs studies and methodology researchers should be included for the study. QUADAS as diagnostic quality assessment tool should be encouraged. Flow chart and funnel plot should be strictly applied according to PRISMA statement.
