ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of animal experiments published in high impact journals, in order to provide references for improving the quality of animal experiments.MethodsCSCD and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect intervening primordial animal experiments from 2014 to August, 2016. Four reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies by using SYRCLE tool.ResultsA total of 1 999 animal experiments were included. The cited frequency of more than 90% studies were ≤5 times, and of which 52.53% studies were zero. The results of SYRCLE evaluation showed that 54.55% of sub items rated as "low risk" were less than 30%. And 84.62% of them were less than 10%.ConclusionThere are defeet in methodological quality of animal experiments either domestic or abroad. The problems of domestic researches in implementation bias, measurement bias and loss of access bias are particularly obvious. The coincidence rates of "low risk" are much lower than those of abroad studies. Therefore, we suggest that it is necessary to take specific measures to popularize SYRCLE tool to effectively guide the development of animal experiments and improve the design and implementation of animal experiments.
Methodological quality and transferability will be important issues for the credibility and usefulness of both published studies and administrative methods for evaluating the socio-economic value of marketed medicines in China. This paper critically examines factors commonly contributing to, or inhibiting, the quality and transferability of socio-economic evidence of the value of medicines, with specific reference to the Chinese community. It discusses appropriate approaches to design, performance, and reporting of published economic evaluation studies, as well as guides on assessment of quality of economic evaluations and recommends two internationally established methods that may be suitable for training in this setting.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SRs/MAs) in fields of integrated Chinese-western therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MethodsSRs/MAs in fields of integrated Chinese-western therapy for NSCLC were searched inPubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to July 10th, 2016. We also handsearched relevant journals such as Chin J Evid-based Med and reference of included studies, and tried to find the grey literature for additional studies. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then methodological quality of included SRs/MAs were evaluated by AMSTAR scale. ResultsA total of 53 SRs/MAs were included, the highest and lowest scores of methodological quality were 9 and 1, respectively. The average score was 5.98±1.50. Results on the qualities of methodology or evaluation showed that 46 SRs/MAs (88.68%) was rated as moderate and 6 (11.32%) as low． The main problems were found in such areas as preliminary design scheme, literature searching, a list of included and excluded studies, etc.. ConclusionThe methodology of SRs/MAs in fields of integrated Chinese-western therapy for NSCLC have quality problems at different levels, further improvement should be expected.
Objective To assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion. Methods We searched CNKI database to collect meta-analysis published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion up to 2015. Methodological quality assessment was carried out using AMSTAR tool, and quality assessment was carried out by PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was performed by using SPSS 19.0 software. Results A total of 31 meta-analyses were enrolled. Among all the 31 meta-analyses, the first authors came from 19 institutions, and 21 meta-analysis were supported by fundings. All meta-analyses were about the evaluations of acupuncture intervention, involving 10 disease systems (ICD-10) and sub-health. The mean score of the methodological assessment was 7.42±1.13. In addition, the mean score of reporting quality was 18.79±2.04. Conclusion The meta-analyses published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion have high quality on methodology as well as reporting. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, the above results are needed to be further assessed by more studies.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodology quality and report quality of the published systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of pediatric tuina domestically and abroad.MethodsCBM, VIP, CNKI, WanFang Data, PubMed, EMbase, and The Cochrane Library were electronically searched to collect published pediatric tuina SRs/MAs from inception to December 10th, 2018. The SRs/MAs which includes scale evaluation used AMSTAR2 and the PRISMA report quality evaluation tool to systematically review methodology, adopts Excel to carry out data collation and statistical analysis. ResultsA total of 18 studies (14 in Chinese and 4 in English) on the SRs/MAs of pediatric tuina were finally included. In terms of methodological quality, 6 studies were of low quality and 12 studies were of very low quality. All studies did not explain the reasons for adopting a particular research design type, and few of them explained the pre-plan, exclusion list, reasons and funding. In terms of report quality, 7 studies were relatively complete, 10 studies had certain defects and one study had serious defects. The existing problems were program and registration, comprehensive retrieval, information sources, financial support and so on. ConclusionsSRs/MAs of pediatric tuina have different degrees of issues in terms of methodological quality and report quality which still require further improvement and continuous strengthening.
Objective To evaluate reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field in China. Methods CNKI database was searched for systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field from the establishment date to December 2011. Two reviewers independently identified the literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then extracted the data using Excel software. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively. Results A total of 63 systematic reviews or meta-analyses involving 21 systematic reviews and 42 meta-analyses were identified. These articles were published on 13 journals such as The Chinese Nursing Research, the Chinese Journal of Nursing, and the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The deficiencies of methodological quality mainly contained literature search, heterogeneity handling, recognition and assessment of publication bias. In addition, the deficiencies of reporting characteristics were reflected on incomplete reporting of literature search, quality assessment, risk of bias and results (some studies lacked forest plot, estimated value of pooled results, 95%CI or heterogeneity). Conclusion As a whole, the included reviews and meta-analyses have more or less flaws with regard to the quality of reporting and methodology based on the PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists. Focusing on the improvement of reporting and methodological quality of systematic review or meta-analysis in nursing field in China is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of meta-analysis published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing.MethodsCNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect meta-analysis which published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing from inception to December 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and the reporting quality by AMSTAR scale and PRISMA statement. Statistical analysis was then performed by using SPSS 19.0 software.ResultsA total of 53 meta-analyses were included, which involved 7 disease systems and sub-health status. The mean score of the methodological assessment by AMSTAR was 7.75±1.32, including 9 high-quality papers (17.0%), 41 middle-quality papers (77.4%), and 3 low-quality papers (5.6%). The mean score of the reporting quality assessment by PRISMA was 22.5±3.08, including 39 relatively complete papers (73.6%), 11 papers with certain defects (20.8%), and 3 papers with serious defects (5.6%).ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing deserves further improvement.
At present, there are many items/checklists used to assess the methodological quality of animal studies. Yet, no tool has been specifically designed for assessing internal validity of animal studies. This articles introduce and interprets SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies in detail for Chinese scholars to accurately assess the methodological quality of animal studies when they develop systematic reviews on animal studies, so as to provide references for scientific design and implementation of animal studies.
Objective To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched by computer, and the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of corticosteroid hormone as an auxiliary means for the treatment of severe pneumonia which were published from establishment of the databases to October 25th, 2018 were searched. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to evaluate the quality of literature reports. Results A total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, all of which were non-Cochrane systematic reviews. In terms of methodological quality assessed by AMSTAR-2, there was no plan in all studies; only one study explained the reasons for inclusion in the study type; eight studies did not describe the dose and follow-up time of the intervention/control measures in detail; three studies did not indicate the evaluation tools and did not describe the risk bias; six studies did not explicitly examine publication bias. In terms of reporting quality assessed by PRISMA, all studies had no pre-registered study protocol or registration number; thirteen studies did not describe the specific amount of articles retrieved from each database; three studies did not present their retrieval strategies or excluded reasons in detail; no funding sources were identified in included studies; eight studies reported both whether the study was funded and whether there was a conflict of interest. Conclusions At present, there are many systematic review/meta-analysis studies on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia, and the overall quality of the study has been gradually improved. However, the common problems in the study are relatively prominent. The follow-up period and dose of intervention in the study of severe pneumonia are different, so the baseline is difficult to be unified. Suggestions: strengthening the training of researchers, standardize the research process, and report articles in strict accordance with the PRISMA statement; subgroup analysis being conducted according to the dose and duration of the hormone.
ObjectiveTo provide references for scientific selection of different tools/guidelines by comprehensively collecting international and national tools/guidelines for assessing reporting quality and methodological quality of animal experiments, comparing them in development foundation, application scope, and aims. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched up to July 2014, to collect tools/guidelines for reporting quality and methodological quality of primary animal experiments. We extracted data from included guidelines/tools, including the number of items, development foundation, disease models, application scope, and assessment focus. Then descriptive analysis was conducted. ResultsA total of 32 studies were finally included, of which, 6 were for reporting quality and 26 for methodological quality. The item number of the included tools/guidelines ranged from 2 to 54. Seven tools/guidelines applied score system to assess methodological quality. Fifteen tools/guidelines were designed for specific disease models. Nineteen tools/guidelines were suitable for assessing preclinical drug studies, and 4 were designed to assess environmental toxicology research. ConclusionAlthough many tools for assessing methodological quality of animal experiments have been published so far, SYRCLE's risk of bias tool is the only one that is used to assess internal validity of animal experiments at present. Besides, although the ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC are not official mandatory reporting criteria at present, they are acknowledged by many researchers as efficient reference checklists and writing guidelines for writing and publishing animal experiments. We recommend the application of SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC, in order to efficiently improve research design, implementation, reporting, differentiation, and evaluation of animal experiments, promote the development of animal experiments, and to promote full application and translation of scientific achievements.