ObjectiveTo analyze the reporting and methodological quality of tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals. MethodsThe CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases were electronically searched for meta-analyses of tranexamic acid from inception to August 12th, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and used AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA 2009 to assess the methodological and reporting quality of publications. ResultsA 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 (rs=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). ConclusionsBoth the methodological and reporting quality of the tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals require improvement.
ObjectiveTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/Meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of transurethral procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MethodWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 12, 2014), Sciverse, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to December 2014 to collect SRs/MAs of transurethral procedure about BPH. Two reviewers independently screened literature and assessed the methodological and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs by AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. ResultsA total of 33 SRs/MAs were included. The results of qualitative analysis showed that:the main methodological weakness of included SRs/MAs included the lack of protocol, disappropriate conclusion formulation, the lack of publication bias assessment, and the lack of stating the conflict of interest. The average score of AMSTAR scale was 6.27±2.14. There were 11 items in PRISMA checklist with coincidence rate over 80%, 8 items between 50% to 80%, and 8 items less than 50%. ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of SR/MA of transurethral procedure for BHP is low, and that may decrease the reliability and value of results from SRs/MAs in the field. Future SRs/MAs should strictly follow the related reporting guidelines in order to improve the methodological and reporting quality, so as to provide more reliable evidence for clinical decision.
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.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the current status and trend of methodological quality of multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of stroke treatments in Chinese Mainland.MethodsMulti-center RCTs of stroke treatments conducted in Chinese Mainland published in Chinese or English language from January 2000 to December 2019 were retrieved from seven databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Embase, China Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database, and Wanfang Database. The basic information was collected. Methodological items were referred to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. The definitions of Wade were used to assess the outcome measure.ResultsA total of 90 multi-center RCTs were included, of which 39 were published from 2000 to 2009, and 51 were published from 2010 to 2019. The total number of trials published from 2010 to 2019 was 1.31 times of that published from 2000 to 2009. The research subjects were ischemic stroke patients in 58.9% (53/90) of the RCTs, intracerebral hemorrhage patients in 14.4% (13/90) of the RCTs, and ischemic stroke patients as well as hemorrhagic stroke patients in 26.7% (24/90) of the RCTs. There were 55.6% (50/90) drug trials, and 44.4% (40/90) non-drug trials. There were statistically significant differences in the loss of visit report (P=0.005), primary and secondary outcome indicators report (P=0.027), and adverse reaction report (P=0.007) between the two periods; there was no statistically significant difference in reported adequate randomized methods (P=0.341), allocation concealment (P=0.611), blindness (P=0.551), used intentionality analysis (P=0.573), or follow-up time (P=0.061) between the two periods.ConclusionIn the past 20 years in Chinese Mainland, the quality of stroke treatment RCTs improves slowly, and more attention should be paid to develop the RCTs of true randomization, blinding, and better patient outcome measures.
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.
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.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of surgical meta-analyses published in English in 2014.MethodsAll meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in 2014 were selected from PubMed and EMbase. The characteristics of these meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological quality were assessed by the PRISMA and AMSTAR, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsA total of 197 meta-analyses covering 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR score (by items) were 22.2±2.4 and 7.8±1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with a R2 of 0.754. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors who had previously published meta-analysis was significantly higher in reporting and methodological quality than those who had not (P<0.001). Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these reporting (P<0.001) and methodological (P<0.001) quality between studies published in Q1 ranked journals and (Q2+Q3) ranked jounals. On multivariate analyses, region of origin (non-Asiavs. Asia), publishing experience of first authors (ever vs. never), rank of publishing journals (Q1 vs. Q2+Q3), and preregistration (presence vs. absence) were associated with better reporting and methodologic quality, independently.ConclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of current surgical meta-analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors' experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration may be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analysis, which deserves more attention from future meta-analysis reviewers.
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.
This paper summarizes the methodological quality assessment tools of artificial intelligence-based diagnostic test accuracy studies, and introduces QUADAS-AI and modified QUADAS-2. Moreover, this paper summarizes reporting guidelines of these studies as well, and then introduces specific reporting standards in AI-centred research, and checklist for AI in dental research.