Normativity of overview report of the systematic review of acupuncture and moxibustion at home and abroad based on PRIO-harms scale.
10.13703/j.0255-2930.20190508-k0004
- Author:
Lin-Jia WANG
1
;
Qian ZENG
1
;
Yu-Jie XIE
1
;
Dan CHEN
1
;
De-Yi YAO
1
;
Xing CHEN
1
;
Jian TANG
1
;
Ling ZHAO
1
Author Information
1. School of Acupuncture-Moxibusiton and Tuina, Chengdu University of TCM, Chengdu 610075, Sichuan Province, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
acupuncture and moxibustion;
overview report of systematic review (Overviews);
preferred reporting items;
report normativity
- MeSH:
Acupuncture Therapy;
China;
Humans;
Moxibustion
- From:
Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion
2020;40(7):793-798
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate and compare the normativity of overview report of systematic review (Overviews) of acupuncture and moxibustion at home and abroad so as to further improve the report quality of Overviews of acupuncture and moxibustion in China and provide reliable evidences.
METHODS:The articles relevant with Overviews of acupuncture and moxibustion at home and abroad were retrieved by computer from the databases of CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, China BioMedical Literature database (SinoMed), PubMed, Embase and Conchrane Library, dated from the time of establishment to February 12, 2019. The preferred reporting items for Overviews (PRIO-harms) was adopted to evaluate their normativity and make the comparison of the articles between China and foreign countries.
RESULTS:A total of 13 articles of Overviews of acupuncture and moxibustion were included, 9 articles of them were of Chinese version and the rest were of English version. The results of PRIO-harms indicated that the proportions of the item numbers related to adequate, partial and inadequate adherence of Chinese version were 3.7%, 63.8% and 32.5%, and those of English version were 12.0%, 57.4% and 30.6% respectively. The reports on the item 10 "additional search for primary studies", the item 12 "data items" and the item 26 "Dual/(co-)authorship" were inadequate adherence by 100% in the articles of both Chinese and English version.
CONCLUSION:The overall information of English article report is better than Chinese one, but the reports of either Chinese or English articles are not so satisfactory. It is suggested that the Overviews report should be in reference to the specification in PRIO-harms and the Chinese researchers should study the advantages of English article report and improve the normalization and report quality so as to obtain the high-quality evidences in evidence-based medicine.
