Report quality evaluation of systematic review or Meta-analysis published in China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica.
10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20171220.001
- Author:
Yan ZHANG
1
;
Dan-Dan YU
2
;
De-Hua CUI
3
;
Xing LIAO
2
;
Hua GUO
4
Author Information
1. Editorial Office of China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, Beijing 100700, China.
2. Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences， Beijing 100700, China.
3. Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China.
4. Graduate School of Student Affairs, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
quality evaluation;
systematic review or Meta-analysis;
the PRISMA statement
- From:
China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica
2018;43(6):1254-1260
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
To evaluate the report quality of intervention-related systematic reviews or Meta-analysis published in China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, we searched CNKI and China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica webpages to collect intervention-related systematic reviews or Meta-analysis since the first issue of the magazine. A total of 40 systematic reviews or Meta-analysis reports were included, including one network Meta-analysis. According to the PRISMA statement published in 2009, the report quality of the systematic reviews or Meta-analysis was evaluated. According to the results, 3 had the low quality, 30 had the medium quality, and 7 had the high quality. The average score for all of items was 30 points (21-30.5 points for the medium quality). The 17 high-quality (31-40 points) report items were title, rationale, objectives, information sources, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, summary measures, risk of bias across studies, study selection, study characteristics, risk of bias within studies, results of individual studies, synthesis of results, risk of bias across studies and funding; the 4 medium-quality (21-30.5 points) reporting items were eligibility criteria, search, limitations and conclusions; and the 6 low-quality (<=20.5 points) reporting items were structured summary, protocol and registration, synthesis of results, additional analysis (No.16), additional analysis (No.23) and summary of evidence. Through the analysis, it is found that the report quality of intervention-related systematic reviews or Meta-analysis published in China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica is medium, and it is necessary to improve the quality standard of the report.
