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.
Cross-Sectional Studies ; Drugs, Chinese Herbal/administration & dosage* ; Systematic Reviews as Topic/standards* ; Humans ; China ; Administration, Oral ; Medicine, Chinese Traditional

To introduce the application status of network Meta-analysis( NMA) in the field of traditional Chinese medicine,and to discuss the application value of NMA in the field of traditional Chinese medicine,this study comprehensively reviewed the systematic reviews with application of NMA in the field of traditional Chinese medicine. CNKI,Wan Fang,Sino Med,VIP,Embase,PubMed and Cochrane Library and the reference list of previous studies were searched. The AMSTAR scale was used to evaluate the quality of literature methodology,and PRISMA-NMA checklist was used to measure the degree of report specification. Overall,122 articles were included,including 80 in Chinese and 42 in English. The included studies centered on cancer,bone and joint disease,cardiovascular disease,respiratory disease,mental disease and digestive disease. Additionally,the intervention can be categorized into three groups,traditional Chinese medicine injection,oral Chinese medicine or prescription,and traditional physical therapy including acupuncture.Nearly one-third of the researches' intervention program is aimed at comparing the effect of Chinese and Western combined therapy and monotherapy. The overall methodology quality grade is medium and the report quality is average,with methodology reporting and result reporting especially need to be improved. The subgroup analysis shows that the methodology quality of the English literatures is evidently higher than Chinese literatures,and the quality of the literatures published after 2015 is higher than those published in or before 2015.This study indicates that the NMA can compare multiple treatments simultaneously,which accords with characteristics of the clinical practice in traditional Chinese medicine that is complex and individual. NMA in the field of traditional Chinese medicine is still in the process of development. With higher level of quality control and reporting as well as the improvement of the statistical methodology and the accumulation of original researches,NMA application in the field of traditional Chinese medicine will be promising.
Administration, Oral ; Humans ; Injections ; Medicine, Chinese Traditional ; Network Meta-Analysis ; Physical Therapy Modalities ; Quality Control ; Research Design/standards* ; Systematic Reviews as Topic

This paper summarizes the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions revised by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and introduces how to use Revman software make risk of bias graph or risk of bias summary. AHRQ tool can be used to evaluate following study designs: RCTs, cohort study, case-control study (including nested case-control), case series study and cross-sectional study. The tool evaluates the risk of bias of individual studies from selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, detection bias and reporting bias. Each of the bias domains contains different items, and each item is available for the assessment of one or more study designs. It is worth noting that the appropriate items should be selected for evaluation different study designs instead of using all items to directly assess the risk of bias. AHRQ tool can be used to evaluate risk of bias individual studies when systematic reviews of health care interventions is including different study designs. Moreover, the tool items are relatively easy to understand and the assessment process is not complicated. AHRQ recommends the use of high, medium and low risk classification methods to assess the overall risk of bias of individual studies. However, AHRQ gives no recommendations on how to determine the overall bias grade. It is expected that future research will give corresponding recommendations.
Bias ; Evidence-Based Medicine/standards* ; Health Services Research ; Systematic Reviews as Topic