Methodological quality analysis of systematic reviews of the burden of illness—PubMed database as an example_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

LIANG Cui ^1,2,3 , DENG Xinxin ^1,2,3 , CUI Lu ^1,2,3 , WANG Hanbin ^1,2,3 , HU Xiaoye ^1,2,3 , HUANG Jiayi ^1,2,3 ,  YANG Kehu ^2,3 ,  LI Xiuxia ^1,2,3

1. Health Technology Assessment Center/Evidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
2. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
3. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;

Corresponding?author：

YANG Kehu, Email: yangkh-ebm@lzu.edu.cn; LI Xiuxia, Email: lixiuxia@lzu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Systematic review; Meta-analysis; AMSTAR-2; Methodology; Burden of disease

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202409027

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness, analyses the factors affecting it, so as to provide a reference basis for improving the methodological quality of related studies. Methods Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness were identified in PubMed, searching from its inception to 12 October 2024. Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness was included, the methodological quality of the included literature was evaluated using AMSTAR-2, and data were extracted using Excel 2021. Results A total of 308 systematic reviews/ meta-analysis were included, with a fluctuating upward trend in the number of publications from 2006 to 2024; of these, a total of 12 were rated as low quality. According to the AMSTAR-2 entries, the largest number of documents fully conformed to entry 16 (82.14%), followed by entry 5 (81.49%), and entry 8 (72.73%); one document conformed to entry 10 (0.32%), and relatively few conformed to entry 12 (68.83%), entry 13 (85.39%), and entry 15 (67.53%). Conclusion The methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness needs to be improved, and the main problems include the lack of pre-study protocols, the absence of a list of excluded literature, and the less than adequate explanation of heterogeneity and risk of bias, etc. There is still a need to further improve the methodological quality of the systematic reviews and to promote the long-term development of evidence based medicine.

Citation： LIANG Cui, DENG Xinxin, CUI Lu, WANG Hanbin, HU Xiaoye, HUANG Jiayi, YANG Kehu, LI Xiuxia. Methodological quality analysis of systematic reviews of the burden of illness—PubMed database as an example. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2025, 25(2): 190-194. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202409027 Copy

1.	Tremmel M, Gerdtham UG, Nilsson PM, et al. Economic burden of obesity: a systematic literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2017, 14(4): 435.
2.	張潔, 錢序, 陳英耀, 等. 疾病負擔研究進展. 中國衛生經濟, 2005, (5): 69-71.
3.	GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet, 2020, 396(10258): 1204-1222.
4.	GBD 2021 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet, 2024, 403(10440): 2100-2132.
5.	胡丹, 康德英, 吳宇俠, 等. 國內發表的中藥相關系統評價的方法學質量評價. 中國中西醫結合雜志, 2011, 31(3): 402-406.
6.	周鵬翔, 閆盈盈, 翟所迪. 國內醫院藥學人員系統評價/Meta分析的方法學與報告質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2017, 17(2): 228-234.
7.	車鵬, 胡俊, 唐雪莉, 等. 《四川精神衛生》雜志發表的干預類隨機對照試驗的系統評價/Meta分析方法學質量評價. 四川精神衛生, 2022, 35(2): 188-193.
8.	徐俊峰, 安妮, 周為文, 等. 《中國循證醫學雜志》發表的干預類系統評價/Meta分析方法學質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(5): 605-611.
9.	Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, 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.
10.	Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0. 2.
11.	席瑾, 陳昊, 程潔, 等. 針灸治療多囊卵巢綜合征的系統評價的質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2019, 19(2): 205-211.
12.	樊茂霞, 戴國華, 高武霖, 等. 芪參益氣滴丸治療慢性心力衰竭的系統評價再評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2023, 23(9): 1060-1065.
13.	Faggion CM Jr. Critical appraisal of amstar: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2015, 15: 63.
14.	方程, 鄧巍, 樊景春, 等. 系統評價與Meta分析的注冊平臺簡介. 同濟大學學報(醫學版), 2019, 40(3): 380-387.
15.	Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev, 2012, 1: 7.
16.	Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ, 2010, 182(1): 13-14.
17.	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AMSTAR 2解讀. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2018, 18(1): 101-108.
18.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998, 280(3): 278-280.
19.	靳英輝, 馬恩婷, 花巍, 等. 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.
20.	來曉磊, 黃明月, 劉紅旭, 等. 中醫藥治療慢性心力衰竭系統評價/Meta分析的方法學與報告質量評價. 中醫雜志, 2023, 64(15): 1544-1549.
21.	劉亦琳, 徐桂興, 黃柳楊, 等. 針灸治療支氣管哮喘的系統評價再評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2022, 22(8): 955-963.
22.	曹妍, 王妍, 張建華, 等. 2022年我國《循證護理》雜志發表的系統評價與Meta分析文獻質量評價. 循證護理, 2023, 9(6): 1008-1012.
23.	盧存存, 柯立鑫, 湯昊, 等. 中文期刊發表的氨甲環酸Meta分析的報告質量與方法學質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2021, 21(11): 1332-1338.
24.	鄭明華. Meta分析軟件應用與實例解析. 北京: 人民衛生出版社, 2013.
25.	熊俊, 陳日新. 系統評價/Meta分析方法學質量的評價工具AMSTAR. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(9): 1084-1089.
26.	張旭, 左麗倩, 劉明秀, 等. 108篇系統評價或Meta分析的方法學質量評價—基于AMSTAR-2. 中國社會醫學雜志, 2021, 38(4): 476-480.

1. Tremmel M, Gerdtham UG, Nilsson PM, et al. Economic burden of obesity: a systematic literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2017, 14(4): 435.
2. 張潔, 錢序, 陳英耀, 等. 疾病負擔研究進展. 中國衛生經濟, 2005, (5): 69-71.
3. GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet, 2020, 396(10258): 1204-1222.
4. GBD 2021 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet, 2024, 403(10440): 2100-2132.
5. 胡丹, 康德英, 吳宇俠, 等. 國內發表的中藥相關系統評價的方法學質量評價. 中國中西醫結合雜志, 2011, 31(3): 402-406.
6. 周鵬翔, 閆盈盈, 翟所迪. 國內醫院藥學人員系統評價/Meta分析的方法學與報告質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2017, 17(2): 228-234.
7. 車鵬, 胡俊, 唐雪莉, 等. 《四川精神衛生》雜志發表的干預類隨機對照試驗的系統評價/Meta分析方法學質量評價. 四川精神衛生, 2022, 35(2): 188-193.
8. 徐俊峰, 安妮, 周為文, 等. 《中國循證醫學雜志》發表的干預類系統評價/Meta分析方法學質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(5): 605-611.
9. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, 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.
10. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0. 2.
11. 席瑾, 陳昊, 程潔, 等. 針灸治療多囊卵巢綜合征的系統評價的質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2019, 19(2): 205-211.
12. 樊茂霞, 戴國華, 高武霖, 等. 芪參益氣滴丸治療慢性心力衰竭的系統評價再評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2023, 23(9): 1060-1065.
13. Faggion CM Jr. Critical appraisal of amstar: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2015, 15: 63.
14. 方程, 鄧巍, 樊景春, 等. 系統評價與Meta分析的注冊平臺簡介. 同濟大學學報(醫學版), 2019, 40(3): 380-387.
15. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev, 2012, 1: 7.
16. Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ, 2010, 182(1): 13-14.
17. 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AMSTAR 2解讀. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2018, 18(1): 101-108.
18. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998, 280(3): 278-280.
19. 靳英輝, 馬恩婷, 花巍, 等. 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.
20. 來曉磊, 黃明月, 劉紅旭, 等. 中醫藥治療慢性心力衰竭系統評價/Meta分析的方法學與報告質量評價. 中醫雜志, 2023, 64(15): 1544-1549.
21. 劉亦琳, 徐桂興, 黃柳楊, 等. 針灸治療支氣管哮喘的系統評價再評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2022, 22(8): 955-963.
22. 曹妍, 王妍, 張建華, 等. 2022年我國《循證護理》雜志發表的系統評價與Meta分析文獻質量評價. 循證護理, 2023, 9(6): 1008-1012.
23. 盧存存, 柯立鑫, 湯昊, 等. 中文期刊發表的氨甲環酸Meta分析的報告質量與方法學質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2021, 21(11): 1332-1338.
24. 鄭明華. Meta分析軟件應用與實例解析. 北京: 人民衛生出版社, 2013.
25. 熊俊, 陳日新. 系統評價/Meta分析方法學質量的評價工具AMSTAR. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(9): 1084-1089.
26. 張旭, 左麗倩, 劉明秀, 等. 108篇系統評價或Meta分析的方法學質量評價—基于AMSTAR-2. 中國社會醫學雜志, 2021, 38(4): 476-480.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Methodological quality analysis of systematic reviews of the burden of illness—PubMed database as an example

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content