ObjectiveTo get known of the application of Preferred Items of Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA). MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2013), CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI, to collect relevant literature about the application of PRISMA during 2009-2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and then bibliometric analysis was performed using Excel software. ResultsWe finally included 175 papers, including 26 conference abstracts and 149 full texts. The results of bibliometric analysis of full texts showed that, they were published in 118 journals, and PRISMA official website announced that 176 journals endorsed the application of PRISMA. According to study type, there were 111 systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) for development and reporting, 20 overviews of SRs for reporting quality assessments, 7 versions of PRISMA interpretation, and 11 articles of other kinds. In 131 SRs/MAs as well as overviews, the studies about western medicine accounted for 77.8%, followed by public health (8.4%), and traditional Chinese medicine (4.6%). ConclusionThe application of PRISMA statement is still at the first phase and mainly confined to the field of western medicine, which needs more attention and understanding. Thus, it's necessary to interpret and disseminate the PRISMA statement.
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.
ObjectiveTo investigate the awareness situation on the ARRIVE guideline and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) of animal experiments in researchers in animal experiments field in Lanzhou city, in order to improve the promotion of the two reporting guidelines in China. MethodsA self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate the clinical graduate students and teachers in medical college in Lanzhou city. The investigation contents mainly included the basic information of the respondents, the awareness situation on the ARRIVE guideline, GSPC and other medical reporting guidelines. SPSS 21.0 software was used for data analysis. ResultsA total of 329 questionnaires (40 were from teachers and 289 were from graduate students) were issued, of which, 287 questionnaires were effective. The results showed that the awareness rate on the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC in clinical graduate students and teachers in medical college in Lanzhou city were 11.8% and 12.5%, respectively, and there was no significant difference between students and teachers in awareness rate (P=0.903). The survey approaches, the age, education, job, and the organization of the respondents were all not the influence factors of awareness rate (P>0.05). The respondents knew about the reporting guidelines mainly through the website (33.4%), related studies (21.2%) and academic reports (17.4%). ConclusionThe awareness rate on the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC is relative low in researchers in animal experiments field in Lanzhou city, and it needed to take purposeful measures to promote and popularize them.
ObjectiveTo assess the endorsement of the ARRIVE guideline and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) by Chinese journals in animal experiments field and its incorporation into their editorial processes. MethodsChinese journals indexed by SCI, MEDLINE, CSCD or CSTPCD were included. The latest'instruction for authors' (IFA) of each included journals was downloaded and any text mentioning the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC was extracted. Subsequently, a self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate the editor of each included journals. The investigation contents mainly included the basic information of the respondents, the awareness situation on the ARRIVE guideline, GSPC and their incorporation into editorial and peer review processes. Results240 journals in animal experiments field from China were examined. A total of 240 questionnaires were issued, of which, 198 questionnaires were effective (response rate 82.5%). The results showed that all IFAs didn't mention the ARRIVE guideline or GSPC and the awareness rate on the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC in editors of Chinese journals was only 13.1%. Only 10.1% of the editors reported that they required authors to comply with the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC. And editors reported that they incorporated the two guidelines into their peer review (7.1%) and editorial processes (8.1%). ConclusionAt present, all Chinese journals'IFAs didn't mention the ARRIVE guideline or GSPC. The majority of editors surveyed are not familiar with the content of the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC. And it needs to take purposeful measures to promote and popularize them in order to improve the quality of animal experiment reports.
ObjectiveTo develop reporting guideline for dose-response meta-analysis (DMA), so as to help Chinese authors to understand DMA better and to promote the reporting quality of DMA conducted by them. MethodPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WanFang Data were searched from Jan 1st 2011 to Dec 30th 2015 to collect DMA papers published by Chinese authors. The number of these publications by years, whether and what kind of reporting guideline was used, and whether the DMA method claimed in these publications was correct were analysed. Then we drafted a checklist of items for reporting DMA, and organized a discussion meeting with experts from the fields of DMA, evidence-based medicine, clinical epidemiology, and clinicians to collect suggestions for revising the draft reporting guideline for DMA. ResultsOnly 33.73% of the publications clarified it is a DMA on the title and 48.02% of them reported risk of bias. Almost 38.49% of the publications didn't use any reporting guidelines. Fourteen of them claimed an incorrect use of methodology. We primarily took account for 47 potential items related to DMA based on our literature analysis results and existing reporting guidelines for other types of meta-analyses. After the discussion meeting with 6 experts, we revised the items, and finally the G-Dose checklist with 43 items for reporting DMA was developed. ConclusionThere is a lack of attention on reporting guidelines in Chinese authors and evidence suggests these authors may be at risk of incomplete understanding on reporting guidelines. It is strongly recommended to use reporting guidelines for DMA and other types of meta-analyses in Chinese authors.
The standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy (STARD) was developed for guiding the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Its newest version was published in 2015. The study mainly introduced the checklist, terminology, and diagram of the STARD 2015. It is hoped that domestic researchers could use the STARD 2015 to guide the implementation and reporting of their diagnostic accuracy studies, so as to improve the reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies.
在缺乏数据进行 Meta 分析的系统评价中，通常使用替代合成方法，但这些方法却很少被报道，而模糊的方法阐述可能会导致人们质疑系统评价结果的真实性。无 Meta 分析数据合成（SWiM）报告规范是用于指导采用了替代合成方法评估干预措施效应的系统评价进行清晰报告的规范。本文介绍了 SWiM 规范的研制过程及 9 个 SWiM 报告条目及其相应的解释与示例。
Based on the PRISMA 2009 checklist, the study analyzed current status and reporting quality of systematic reviews of animal experiments, and consulted experts in relevant fields to form an initial entry pool of reporting checklists for systematic reviews of animal experiments in traditional Chinese medicine (PRISMA-ATCM). Then, the initial entry pool was improved through 2 rounds of Delphi expert consultation. Finally, the items were revised through the consensus meeting, and the final PRISMA-ATCM was formed. Of the 27 items on the PRISMA checklist, 12 were revised and expanded, specifically relating to TCM interventions and animal characteristics. The publication of the PRISMA-ATCM will improve the transparency and standardization of systematic reviews of animal experiments in Chinese medicine.
ObjectiveTo select the key questions of the reporting quality of acupuncture therapy network meta-analysis. MethodsA question pool about reporting quality of acupuncture therapy network meta-analysis was conducted by preliminary literature research and qualitative systematic review. A correspondence questionnaire was designed and the selection of key questions was carried out through two rounds of expert consultation using the Delphi method. ResultsA total of 21 key questions were selected for the network meta-analysis report standard of acupuncture, including whether to report details of acupuncture interventions (e.g., needle type, acupoints used, number of needles inserted, depth of needle insertion, retention time, needling techniques, and treatment duration), diagnostic criteria for diseases or traditional Chinese medicine syndromes, and qualifications of acupuncture practitioners. Of these, the only three key questions answered by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were summary, protocol and registration, and source of funding, while the remaining 19 were specific to acupuncture-related report standards. ConclusionThe conducted key question on reporting guideline of acupuncture network meta-analysis can improve the standardization and rigor of relevant research and better utilize its academic and clinical value.
To solve the problems such as the incomplete and non-standard reporting outcomes in clinical trials, international methodologists have simultaneously launched guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports in 2022 on the basis of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement 2010. The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension recommend outcome-specific reporting items should be included prospectively in trial protocols and reports, regardless of trial design or population. This paper introduces and interprets the two guidelines for reporting outcomes, and discusses their significance and enlightenment to the research in the field of traditional Chinese medicine. For example, using the outcome reporting guidelines will help clinical researchers comprehensively consider issues related to outcomes when reporting protocols or results, which may improve the quality of research design and reporting. For core outcome set, the five core elements of outcomes may help researchers extracting and analyzing outcomes, which will standardize research; the explanation of medical terminology in the outcome reporting guidelines will contribute to the improvement of methodology in the field of traditional Chinese medicine.