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.	乔晓峰, 李建安, 刘士臣, 等. 氨甲环酸在腰椎后路椎间融合术患者中应用的安全性及有效性Meta分析. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2021, 31(3): 238-246.
2.	姚汝瞻, 王炳武, 潘洪发, 等. 创伤骨折手术应用氨甲环酸疗效和安全性的Meta分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2019, 19(3): 331-337.
3.	陈朦村, 王金龙, 杨述华, 等. 关节腔内应用与静脉应用氨甲环酸在初次单侧全膝关节置换术中疗效比较的Meta分析. 中国骨与关节杂志, 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.	卢存存, 杨丰文, 柯立鑫, 等. 系统评价再评价优先报告条目解读. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2018, 13(3): 236-240.
11.	王娟, 丁岚利, 廖茗伊, 等. 联合氨甲环酸和肾上腺素对全膝关节置换术失血的研究. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(3): 329-334.
12.	鹿战, 史俊龙, 刘沛东, 等. 首次单侧全髋关节置换中静滴与局部使用氨甲环酸效果比较的Meta分析. 中国组织工程研究, 2019, 23(24): 3931-3936.
13.	陶欢, 杨乐天, 平安, 等. 随机或非随机防治性研究系统评价的质量评价工具AMSTAR2解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 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.	卢存存. 中药治疗胃癌的研究证据评价及网络药理学研究. 兰州: 兰州大学, 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.	周为文, 葛龙, 徐俊峰, 等. 《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(4): 482-488.
25.	谢卓霖, 令娟, 李勇坤, 等. 胰升血糖素样肽1受体激动剂治疗2型糖尿病的Meta分析/系统评价再评价. 中国糖尿病杂志, 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.	文进, 李幼平. Meta分析中效应尺度指标的选择. 中国循证医学杂志, 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. 乔晓峰, 李建安, 刘士臣, 等. 氨甲环酸在腰椎后路椎间融合术患者中应用的安全性及有效性Meta分析. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2021, 31(3): 238-246.
2. 姚汝瞻, 王炳武, 潘洪发, 等. 创伤骨折手术应用氨甲环酸疗效和安全性的Meta分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2019, 19(3): 331-337.
3. 陈朦村, 王金龙, 杨述华, 等. 关节腔内应用与静脉应用氨甲环酸在初次单侧全膝关节置换术中疗效比较的Meta分析. 中国骨与关节杂志, 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. 卢存存, 杨丰文, 柯立鑫, 等. 系统评价再评价优先报告条目解读. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2018, 13(3): 236-240.
11. 王娟, 丁岚利, 廖茗伊, 等. 联合氨甲环酸和肾上腺素对全膝关节置换术失血的研究. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(3): 329-334.
12. 鹿战, 史俊龙, 刘沛东, 等. 首次单侧全髋关节置换中静滴与局部使用氨甲环酸效果比较的Meta分析. 中国组织工程研究, 2019, 23(24): 3931-3936.
13. 陶欢, 杨乐天, 平安, 等. 随机或非随机防治性研究系统评价的质量评价工具AMSTAR2解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 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. 卢存存. 中药治疗胃癌的研究证据评价及网络药理学研究. 兰州: 兰州大学, 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. 周为文, 葛龙, 徐俊峰, 等. 《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(4): 482-488.
25. 谢卓霖, 令娟, 李勇坤, 等. 胰升血糖素样肽1受体激动剂治疗2型糖尿病的Meta分析/系统评价再评价. 中国糖尿病杂志, 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. 文进, 李幼平. Meta分析中效应尺度指标的选择. 中国循证医学杂志, 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