Reporting and methodological quality of tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

 LU Cuncun ^1,2,3 , KE Lixin ⁴ , TANG Hao ⁵ , LI Rui ^1,2 , LI Jieyun ^1,2 , YANG Kehu ^1,2,6

1. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P.R.China;
2. Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, P.R.China;
3. Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, P.R.China;
4. Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, P.R.China;
5. Department of Orthopedics, Zhuozhou City Hospital, Baoding 072750, P.R.China;
6. Evidence-Based Social Science Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P.R.China;

Corresponding?author：

LU Cuncun, Email: cuncunlu2017@163.com

Keywords：

Tranexamic acid; Meta-analyses; Methodological quality; Reporting quality

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202108167

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To analyze the reporting and methodological quality of tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals. Methods The CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases were electronically searched for meta-analyses of tranexamic acid from inception to August 12^th, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and used AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA 2009 to assess the methodological and reporting quality of publications. Results A total of 68 meta-analyses were included. The identified meta-analyses required improvement for items 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 16 in the AMSTAR 2, and items 2, 5, 8, 12, 15, 17, 22, 24, and 27 in the PRISMA 2009 assessments, respectively. The methodological and reporting quality scores were positively correlated (r_s=0.36, P=0.002). Linear regression analysis identified the mentioning of PRISMA and funding support as the independent factors potentially affecting the reporting quality score (P<0.05). Conclusions Both the methodological and reporting quality of the tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals require improvement.

Citation： LU Cuncun, KE Lixin, TANG Hao, LI Rui, LI Jieyun, YANG Kehu. Reporting and methodological quality of tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2021, 21(11): 1332-1338. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202108167 Copy

1.	喬曉峰, 李建安, 劉士臣, 等. 氨甲環酸在腰椎后路椎間融合術患者中應用的安全性及有效性Meta分析. 中國脊柱脊髓雜志, 2021, 31(3): 238-246.
2.	姚汝瞻, 王炳武, 潘洪發, 等. 創傷骨折手術應用氨甲環酸療效和安全性的Meta分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2019, 19(3): 331-337.
3.	陳朦村, 王金龍, 楊述華, 等. 關節腔內應用與靜脈應用氨甲環酸在初次單側全膝關節置換術中療效比較的Meta分析. 中國骨與關節雜志, 2018, 7(4): 270-276.
4.	Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA, 2014, 312(2): 171-179.
5.	Abushouk AI, Yunusa I, Elmehrath AO, et al. Quality assessment of published systematic reviews in high impact cardiology journals: revisiting the evidence pyramid. Front Cardiovasc Med, 2021, 8: 671569.
6.	Hoffmann TC, Oxman AD, Ioannidis JP, et al. Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions. BMJ, 2017, 358: j2998.
7.	Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q, 2016, 94(3): 485-514.
8.	Hakoum MB, Anouti S, Al-Gibbawi M, et al. Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey. BMJ Open, 2016, 6(8): e011997.
9.	Chapelle C, Ollier E, Girard P, et al. An epidemic of redundant meta-analyses. J Thromb Haemost, 2021, 19(5): 1299-1306.
10.	盧存存, 楊豐文, 柯立鑫, 等. 系統評價再評價優先報告條目解讀. 中國循證兒科雜志, 2018, 13(3): 236-240.
11.	王娟, 丁嵐利, 廖茗伊, 等. 聯合氨甲環酸和腎上腺素對全膝關節置換術失血的研究. 中華關節外科雜志(電子版), 2019, 13(3): 329-334.
12.	鹿戰, 史俊龍, 劉沛東, 等. 首次單側全髖關節置換中靜滴與局部使用氨甲環酸效果比較的Meta分析. 中國組織工程研究, 2019, 23(24): 3931-3936.
13.	陶歡, 楊樂天, 平安, 等. 隨機或非隨機防治性研究系統評價的質量評價工具AMSTAR2解讀. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2018, 18(1): 101-108.
14.	Beverley JS, Barnaby CR, George W, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008.
15.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
16.	Pieper D, Lorenz RC, Rombey T, et al. Authors should clearly report how they derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2-a cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 129: 97-103.
17.	Lu C, Lu T, Ge L, et al. Use of AMSTAR-2 in the methodological assessment of systematic reviews: protocol for a methodological study. Ann Transl Med, 2020, 8(10): 652.
18.	Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, et al. Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study. Syst Rev, 2017, 6(1): 117.
19.	盧存存. 中藥治療胃癌的研究證據評價及網絡藥理學研究. 蘭州: 蘭州大學, 2020.
20.	Lu C, Ke L, Li J, et al. Saffron (Crocus sativus L. ) and health outcomes:a meta-research review of meta-analyses and an evidence mapping study. Phytomedicine, 2021, 91: 153699.
21.	Yan P, Yao L, Li H, et al. The methodological quality of robotic surgical meta-analyses needed to be improved: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 109: 20-29.
22.	Schwingshackl L, Schünemann HJ, Meerpohl JJ. Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence. Eur J Nutr, 2021, 60(6): 2893-2903.
23.	Zhang H, Han J, Zhu YB, et al. Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 70: 4-16.
24.	周為文, 葛龍, 徐俊峰, 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.
25.	謝卓霖, 令娟, 李勇坤, 等. 胰升血糖素樣肽1受體激動劑治療2型糖尿病的Meta分析/系統評價再評價. 中國糖尿病雜志, 2021, 29(1): 35-43.
26.	Leclercq V, Beaudart C, Ajamieh S, et al. Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 115: 46-54.
27.	文進, 李幼平. Meta分析中效應尺度指標的選擇. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2007, 7(8): 608-613.
28.	Jergas H, Baethge C. Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Peer J, 2015, 3: e1364.

1. 喬曉峰, 李建安, 劉士臣, 等. 氨甲環酸在腰椎后路椎間融合術患者中應用的安全性及有效性Meta分析. 中國脊柱脊髓雜志, 2021, 31(3): 238-246.
2. 姚汝瞻, 王炳武, 潘洪發, 等. 創傷骨折手術應用氨甲環酸療效和安全性的Meta分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2019, 19(3): 331-337.
3. 陳朦村, 王金龍, 楊述華, 等. 關節腔內應用與靜脈應用氨甲環酸在初次單側全膝關節置換術中療效比較的Meta分析. 中國骨與關節雜志, 2018, 7(4): 270-276.
4. Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA, 2014, 312(2): 171-179.
5. Abushouk AI, Yunusa I, Elmehrath AO, et al. Quality assessment of published systematic reviews in high impact cardiology journals: revisiting the evidence pyramid. Front Cardiovasc Med, 2021, 8: 671569.
6. Hoffmann TC, Oxman AD, Ioannidis JP, et al. Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions. BMJ, 2017, 358: j2998.
7. Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q, 2016, 94(3): 485-514.
8. Hakoum MB, Anouti S, Al-Gibbawi M, et al. Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey. BMJ Open, 2016, 6(8): e011997.
9. Chapelle C, Ollier E, Girard P, et al. An epidemic of redundant meta-analyses. J Thromb Haemost, 2021, 19(5): 1299-1306.
10. 盧存存, 楊豐文, 柯立鑫, 等. 系統評價再評價優先報告條目解讀. 中國循證兒科雜志, 2018, 13(3): 236-240.
11. 王娟, 丁嵐利, 廖茗伊, 等. 聯合氨甲環酸和腎上腺素對全膝關節置換術失血的研究. 中華關節外科雜志(電子版), 2019, 13(3): 329-334.
12. 鹿戰, 史俊龍, 劉沛東, 等. 首次單側全髖關節置換中靜滴與局部使用氨甲環酸效果比較的Meta分析. 中國組織工程研究, 2019, 23(24): 3931-3936.
13. 陶歡, 楊樂天, 平安, 等. 隨機或非隨機防治性研究系統評價的質量評價工具AMSTAR2解讀. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2018, 18(1): 101-108.
14. Beverley JS, Barnaby CR, George W, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008.
15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
16. Pieper D, Lorenz RC, Rombey T, et al. Authors should clearly report how they derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2-a cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 129: 97-103.
17. Lu C, Lu T, Ge L, et al. Use of AMSTAR-2 in the methodological assessment of systematic reviews: protocol for a methodological study. Ann Transl Med, 2020, 8(10): 652.
18. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, et al. Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study. Syst Rev, 2017, 6(1): 117.
19. 盧存存. 中藥治療胃癌的研究證據評價及網絡藥理學研究. 蘭州: 蘭州大學, 2020.
20. Lu C, Ke L, Li J, et al. Saffron (Crocus sativus L. ) and health outcomes:a meta-research review of meta-analyses and an evidence mapping study. Phytomedicine, 2021, 91: 153699.
21. Yan P, Yao L, Li H, et al. The methodological quality of robotic surgical meta-analyses needed to be improved: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 109: 20-29.
22. Schwingshackl L, Schünemann HJ, Meerpohl JJ. Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence. Eur J Nutr, 2021, 60(6): 2893-2903.
23. Zhang H, Han J, Zhu YB, et al. Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 70: 4-16.
24. 周為文, 葛龍, 徐俊峰, 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.
25. 謝卓霖, 令娟, 李勇坤, 等. 胰升血糖素樣肽1受體激動劑治療2型糖尿病的Meta分析/系統評價再評價. 中國糖尿病雜志, 2021, 29(1): 35-43.
26. Leclercq V, Beaudart C, Ajamieh S, et al. Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 115: 46-54.
27. 文進, 李幼平. Meta分析中效應尺度指標的選擇. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2007, 7(8): 608-613.
28. Jergas H, Baethge C. Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Peer J, 2015, 3: e1364.

Previous Article
Clinical practice guidelines of bronchoalveolar lavage: a methodological quality study
Next Article
Current situation and research prospects of adaptation guidelines

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Reporting and methodological quality of tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content