Reporting and methodological quality assessment for systematic reviews/ meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHOU Pengxiang ^1,2 , YAN Yingying ¹ ,  ZHAI Suodi ¹

1. Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, 100191, P.R.China;
2. Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Science, Peking University, Beijing, 100191, P.R.China;

Corresponding?author：

ZHAI Suodi, Email: zhaisuodi@163.com

Keywords：

Systematic reviews; Meta-analyses; Hospital pharmacy; Quality assessment; PRISMA; AMSTAR

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201608070

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

ObjectiveTo investigate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China, so as to improve the quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses in this field. MethodsThe literatures were retrieved from CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, CMCI, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library from the establishment date to March 17^th, 2016. According to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, authors independently screened and extracted the published information. Reporting and methodological quality of included reviews were evaluated by PRIMSA statements and AMSTAR checklists. Data analysis was conducted by using Excel 2013 software and SPSS 20.0 software. ResultsOne thousand and eighteen systematic reviews/ meta-analyses were included, including 871 Chinese literatures and 147 English literatures. The average score of PRIMSA was 18.41±2.84, and the average score of AMSTAR was 7.38±1.28. The main problems of PRIMSA were structured summary, objectives, protocol and registration, additional analyses and funding. The main problems of AMSTAR were priori design, status of publication and list of studies (included and excluded). Univariate analysis showed that some factors could improve the quality of methodology and reporting, including studies in English (P<0.000 1), published after checklists' (P<0.000 1), hospital in higher-level (P<0.000 1), illuminating the funding or interest conflict (P<0.000 1). Pearson analysis indicated that linear correlation were detected between PRISMA scores and AMSTAR scores (P<0.000 1), as well as citations and AMSTAR scores (P=0.045). ConclusionEvidenced-based pharmacy in hospital has developed rapidly, the quality of methodology and reporting have increaseed year by year, but further improvement should be considered in different aspects. The methods to evaluate the clinical application of these systematic reviews/ meta-analyses should be developed in the future.

Citation： ZHOUPengxiang, YANYingying, ZHAISuodi. Reporting and methodological quality assessment for systematic reviews/ meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2017, 17(2): 228-234. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201608070 Copy

1.	?李幼平. 循證醫學. 第二版. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2009: 3.
2.	李靜, 李幼平. 不斷完善與發展的 Cochrane 系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2008, 8(9): 742-743.
3.	熊俊, 陳日新. 系統評價/Meta分析方法學質量評價工具 AMSTAR. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(9): 1084-1089.
4.	Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7(10): 1-10.
5.	勒英輝, 馬恩婷, 竇昊穎. 國內護理領域系統評價/Meta 分析的方法學與報告質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
6.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Plos Med, 2009, 6(6): e1000097.
7.	孫鳳. 醫學研究報告規范解讀. 第一版. 北京. 北京大學醫學出版社, 2015: 227.
8.	袁金秋, 楊聲坪, 李靖媛, 等. 骨科專業中文系統評價/Meta 分析質量評價. 甘肅科技, 2010, 26(3): 143-144, 188.
9.	李青, 夏蕓, 劉建平, 等. 國內中文期刊發表的中醫藥系統綜述和 Meta 分析文獻質量再評價. 北京中醫藥大學學報(中醫臨床版), 2012, 19(3): 28-33.
10.	王靖, 翁淳光, 劉琴, 等. 國內公共衛生研究領域系統評價/Meta 分析的質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(12): 1367-1374.
11.	楊樹亮, 應凱, 楊慶福, 等. 國內口腔醫學領域系統評價/meta 分析的方法學和報告質量評價. 上海口腔醫學, 2015, 24(4): 505-509.
12.	劉登瑞, 許家科, 高明太, 等. 國內兒科領域系統評價/Meta 分析研究報告質量的回顧性分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2016, 16(11): 1345-1353.
13.	閆盈盈, 易湛苗, 翟所迪. 國內醫院藥學人員系統評價/Meta 分析文獻發表與質量研究. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 12(1): 92-97.
14.	周為文, 葛龍, 田金徽, 等.《中國循證醫學雜志》發表的干預類系統評價/Meta 分析報告質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(4): 482-488.
15.	安妮, 徐俊峰, 田金徽, 等.《中國循證兒科雜志》發表的干預類系統評價/Meta 分析報告質量評價. 中國循證兒科雜志, 2013, 4(8): 110-115.

1. ?李幼平. 循證醫學. 第二版. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2009: 3.
2. 李靜, 李幼平. 不斷完善與發展的 Cochrane 系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2008, 8(9): 742-743.
3. 熊俊, 陳日新. 系統評價/Meta分析方法學質量評價工具 AMSTAR. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(9): 1084-1089.
4. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7(10): 1-10.
5. 勒英輝, 馬恩婷, 竇昊穎. 國內護理領域系統評價/Meta 分析的方法學與報告質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Plos Med, 2009, 6(6): e1000097.
7. 孫鳳. 醫學研究報告規范解讀. 第一版. 北京. 北京大學醫學出版社, 2015: 227.
8. 袁金秋, 楊聲坪, 李靖媛, 等. 骨科專業中文系統評價/Meta 分析質量評價. 甘肅科技, 2010, 26(3): 143-144, 188.
9. 李青, 夏蕓, 劉建平, 等. 國內中文期刊發表的中醫藥系統綜述和 Meta 分析文獻質量再評價. 北京中醫藥大學學報(中醫臨床版), 2012, 19(3): 28-33.
10. 王靖, 翁淳光, 劉琴, 等. 國內公共衛生研究領域系統評價/Meta 分析的質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(12): 1367-1374.
11. 楊樹亮, 應凱, 楊慶福, 等. 國內口腔醫學領域系統評價/meta 分析的方法學和報告質量評價. 上海口腔醫學, 2015, 24(4): 505-509.
12. 劉登瑞, 許家科, 高明太, 等. 國內兒科領域系統評價/Meta 分析研究報告質量的回顧性分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2016, 16(11): 1345-1353.
13. 閆盈盈, 易湛苗, 翟所迪. 國內醫院藥學人員系統評價/Meta 分析文獻發表與質量研究. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 12(1): 92-97.
14. 周為文, 葛龍, 田金徽, 等.《中國循證醫學雜志》發表的干預類系統評價/Meta 分析報告質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(4): 482-488.
15. 安妮, 徐俊峰, 田金徽, 等.《中國循證兒科雜志》發表的干預類系統評價/Meta 分析報告質量評價. 中國循證兒科雜志, 2013, 4(8): 110-115.

Previous Article
Tracking rural health service quality and evaluation mechanism: a biliometric analysis
Next Article
An introduction of the origin and development of N-of-1 trials

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Reporting and methodological quality assessment for systematic reviews/ meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content