Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on acupuncture for acute ischemic stroke. Methods Six databases including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), EMbase (1984 to December 2005), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, 1994 to December 2005), China Biomedicine Database disc (CBMdisc, 1980 to December 2005), VIP (a full text issues database of China, 1989 to December 2005) were searched systematically. Handsearch for further references was conducted. Language was limited to Chinese and English. We identified 74 RCTs that used acupuncture as an intervention and assessed the quality of these reports against the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).Results In regard to the items in the CONSORT statement, 54 (73%) RCTs described baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in each group. Twenty-six (35%) mentioned the method of generating the random sequence, with 4 (5%) using a computer allocation. Only 6 (8%) RCTs had adequate allocation concealment, with 5 RCTs using sealed opaque envelopes and 1 RCT using centralized computer allocation. Only 8 (11%) RCTs used blinding, including 5 described as double-blind. Four (5%) RCTs reported the sample size calculation and 5 (7%) RCTs reported that an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. In regard to the items in STRICTA , only 4 (5%) RCTs reported the numbers of needles inserted. In 35 (47%) RCTs the needle type was reported, but only 26 (35%) mentioned the depths of insertion. Only 1 (1%) RCT mentioned the length of clinical experience and 6 (8%) RCTs reported the background of the acupuncture practitioners, but none stated the duration of their training.Conclusion The reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for acute ischemic stroke was low. The CONSORT statement and STRICTA should be used to standardize the reporting of RCTs of acupuncture.
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 reporting quality of individual/focus group interviews published in nursing journals included in the Chinese science citation database (CSCD).MethodsCSCD database was electronically searched to collect qualitative studies published in nursing journals included in CSCD from January 2016 to December 2018. Two researchers independently screened literatures, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies by COREQ guidelines, SPSS 25.0 software was then used for statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 223 qualitative researches were included. The results of COREQ evaluation showed that full report rate of 43.8% (14/32) studies were less than 50%, 78.6% (11/14) were less than 20%, and the full report rate of item 4 was even 0%. There were no significant differences between different total cites and the availability of funding in COREQ guidelines.ConclusionThe reporting quality of the qualitative researches published in the four nursing journals included in the CSCD requires further improvement. Therefore, we suggest that domestic nursing journals should introduce COREQ guidelines in contribution and strictly implement it in editorial review and peer review.
Objective While reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADR) and adverse drug events (AE) following Chinese medicine injection (CMI) is becoming more common, the reporting quality is of concern. Methods A checklist about the reporting quality of ADR/AE was set up, and the ADR/AE reporting of Herba Houttuyniae injection was chosen as an example. Electronic databases Chinese Journal Net (CJN) (1994-2009) and Chinese Science and Technological Journal Net (VIP) (1989-2009) were searched for target literature. Results Based on our search strategy, 210 articles were included, with 175 articles reporting single or several cases of ADR/AE following Herba Houttuyniae injection (type I report). There were 7 reports from regional or national ADR monitoring centers (type II report), and 28 summary reports from a single hospital or medical center (type III report). All 210 papers mentioned ‘adverse effect,’ ‘safety’ or related meaning words in their titles, but 199 articles did not have abstract. Patient demographic characteristics were not fully reported in these articles. In type I articles, only 97 cases (43.11%) mentioned whether patients had or did not have a history of allergies, while 128 cases (56.89%) in Type II papers and Fourteen (50%) type III papers, did not mention allergic history of patients. Only three articles (3/210, 1.43%), all of them type I, mentioned the syndrome type in Chinese medicine. None of the papers gave clear indications of the type and grade of ADR/AE of patients. Most papers did not report details of the CMI procedure, such as the drug company, product serial number, or the drug’s validity period. Data about the occurrence time and management of ADR/AE was also inadequately reported. Conclusion and recommendations The current reporting format of ADR/AE in clinical CMIs is not standardized. Much fundamental information of ADR/AE following CMI is therefore missing. A standard reporting format for ADR should be developed, and should include the following: 1) a title mentioning adverse effects and safety; 2) a structured abstract including adequate information about the patient and the disease treated, the drug used, the specific ADR/AE, physician response to the ADR/AE, and result of management; 3) demographic characteristic of the patients (gender, age, etc.); 4) clinical characteristics of patients (disease, syndrome, etc); 5) allergic history of patients; 6) diagnosis and syndrome based on Chinese medicine theory; 7) detailed information about the Chinese materia medica intervention (the manufacturer of the drug, series number, valid dates, dosage, route of administration, menstruum, dripping speed, etc.); 8) concomitant drug use; 9) time and symptoms of ADR/AE; 10) type and grading of ADR/AE; 11) physiological systems affected by ADR/AE; 12) specific treatment and prognosis for ADR/AE; 13) evidence of the cause and effect of ADR/AE; 14) any other possibility of ADR/AE. Also, a ADR/AE registration system should be established.
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.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 and to compare the reporting quality with that from 2004 to 2008. MethodsRCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals were collected through a computerized search of the CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases and manual searches of paper journals, all with a search timeframe from 2016 to 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement and two extensions (CONSORT extension for abstracts and CONSORT harms extension) were used to evaluate the RCTs. The criteria for reporting quality were the evaluation score, reporting proportion, and compliance proportion. The reporting quality of RCTs in the past 5 years was compared by year group. In addition, the RCT reporting quality from 2004 to 2008 was compared with that from 2016 to 2020. ResultsIn total, 226 RCTs were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the total evaluation score or abstract score from 2016 to 2020 (F=0.54, P=0.71; H=1.49, P=0.83). However, there were statistically significant differences in the harm scores from 2016 to 2020 (H=10.78, P=0.03). Further analysis of the items revealed statistically significant differences in the reporting proportion of items 16 and 19 (Fisher’s=8.61, P=0.04; χ2=11.63, P=0.02) and no significant differences in the other items (P>0.05). The reporting proportion of defined primary and secondary outcome indicators, allocation concealment, randomization implementation, outcomes and estimation, generalization, trial registration, and flow chart was <10% in each year. There was a statistically significant difference in the compliance proportion of RCT reporting quality from 2016 to 2020 versus 2004 to 2008 (39.54%±8.92% vs. 34.76%±9.16%, t=6.60, P<0.001). ConclusionThe reporting quality of RCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 is better than that from 2004 to 2008. However, the reporting quality of RCTs within the latter 5 years still have reporting deficiencies in important items, and many aspects still are needed to be improved and enhanced.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals in 2015.MethodsCBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were searched to collect clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals from January, 2015 to December, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines were evaluated by the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT). Excel software was used for data analysis.ResultsA total of 74 clinical practice guidelines were included. It was found that among the seven domains of RIGHT, the reporting quality of basic information and background domains were acceptable. There were fewer problems in the domain of evidence and recommendation. There were many deficiencies in three domains, such as review and quality assurance, funding and the declaration/management of interests and other information.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals in 2015 is low, and the full reporting rate of clinical practice guidelines need to be improved. It is suggested that guideline developers construct strict guidelines for the development and report the guidelines with international standard, thus improving the quality of the clinical practice guidelines.
ObjectiveTo investigate the application status of survival analysis in studies published in Chinese oncology journals, and assess their reporting quality and summarize the existing problems, so as to promote the application of survival analysis and reporting quality. MethodsStudies that used survival analysis were collected from 1 492 studies published in Chinese Journal of Oncology, Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology, Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology and Chinese Journal of Cancer Prevention and Treatment in 2013. The application status of survival analysis of included studies was analysed and their reporting quality was evaluated. ResultsA total of 242 survival analysis studies were included. Among them, the utilization rates of Kaplan-Meier method, life table method, log-rank test, Breslow test and Cox proportional hazards model were 91.74%, 3.72%, 78.51%, 0.41% and 46.28%, respectively. 112 studies did multivariate analysis through Cox proportional hazards model. A total of 396 end points and 10 different types of survival time were reported. Overall survival (OS) was reported in 233 studies (92.15%). Survival terms were defined to 158 end points (39.90%) of 103 studies (42.56%). The follow-up rates were mentioned in 155 studies (64.05%), of which 4 studies were under 80% and the lowest was 75.25%, 55 studies were 100%. The main problems of survival analysis studies published in Chinese journals were as follows:None of the studies which used Cox proportional hazards model reported the proportional hazards assumption. None of the studies used the method of parametric survival analysis. 130 studies (53.72%) did not use the method of multiple factor analysis. 139 studies (57.44%) did not define the survival terms. Only 11 of 100 studies which reported loss to follow-up had stated how to treat it in the analysis. None of the studies reported the methods of calculating sample size. None of the studies reported the censoring proportion. ConclusionThe methods of survival analysis are used in a low rate in studies published in Chinese oncology journals, and the overall reporting quality of survival analyses is poor. So the reporting guideline of survival analysis should be developed and the authors should be encouraged to cooperate with professional statisticians, in order to improve the design, analysis and reporting quality of survival analysis studies.