Objective To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of intervention published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, so as to provide evidence for improving the domestic methodological quality. Methods The systematic reviews or meta-analyses of intervention published from 2001 to 2011 were identified by searching the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by AMSTAR scale. The Excel software was used to input data, and Mata-Analyst software was used to conduct statistical analysis. Results A total of 379 studies were included. The average score of AMSTAR was 6.15±1.35 (1.5-9.5 point). Just some items of AMSTAR scale were influenced by the following features of included studies: publication date, funded or not, number of author, author’s unit, and number of author’s unit. The total AMSTAR score of studies published after 2008 was higher than those published before 2008 (P=0.02), but the improvement of methodological quality was limited. While the total AMSTAR score of studies published by 3 or more than 3 authors were higher than those published by 2 or less than 2 authors (P=0.04). Conclusion The methodological quality of the included studies published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics is uneven. Although the methodological quality improves somewhat after the publication of AMSTAR scale, there is no big progress, so it still needs to be further improved.
Objective To evaluate the relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses that focused on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction. Methods The systematic reviews/meta-analyses on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction were searched in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data from inception to September 30th, 2012, and a total of 15 professional journals and the references of included studies were also retrieved manually. Two reviewers screened the literature according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Then the AMSTAR was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and the GRADE system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Results A total of twelve relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, of which five focused on the prevention and treatment of dry socket, six on the prevention of swelling, seven on the prevention and treatment of pain, six on the prevention of limitation of mouth opening, two on the prevention of infection, three on the prevention of bleeding, and one on the treatment of nerve damage after tooth extraction. Based on AMSTAR, seven studies were minor limitations and five studies were moderate limitations. Based on GRADE system, two was high quality of evidence, twelve were moderate, nine were low, and seven were very low. Conclusion Currently, the systematic reviews/meta-analyses on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction can provide some references for clinical practice, which should be combined with the real condition by clinical doctors when making an evidence-based decision. However, it also suggests performing more high quality and large sample studies to prove this conclusion.
AMSTAR (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) is currently developed as a measurement tool with extensive application to assess the methodological quality of systematic review/meta-analysis. It has good reliability, validity, and responsibility, and has been widely applied. This paper introduces AMSTAR to researchers and users in China, in view of development procedure, assessment items, and application status.
ObjectiveTo investigate the status of research and development methods of Cochrane overviews. MethodsThe Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched up to March 2014 to identify Cochrane overviews. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed and analyzed search strategy, quality assessment method, data analysis, and study results. ResultsA total of 18 Cochrane overviews were included. Among them, 4 (22.2%) overviews included formal statistical indirect comparison; 8 (44.4%) included only results from direct comparison; 6 (33.4%) only systematically analyzed current studies without data pooling; 12 (66.7%) only searched The Cochrane Library, while 6 (33.3%) expanded search to other databases; 14 (77.8%) applied the AMSTAR tool to assess methodological quality of included literature; 12 (66.7%) applied the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence; and 9 (50%) yielded new outcomes. ConclusionCurrently, the development and reporting standards of Cochrane overviews are still immature. Investigators should choose proper methods based on research objectives when developing Cochrane overviews.
ObjectivesTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of effectiveness and safety of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2015), CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP to collect SRs/MAs of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain from inception to January 30th, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included SRs/MAs. ResultsA total of 21 SRs/MAs were included. Twenty of them assessed the methodological quality of included original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different tools:2 used Jadad scale, 5 used PEDro scale, 6 used Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and 7 used other tools. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:among 11 items, the item 1 of "Was an ‘a priori’ design provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) and item 4 of "Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) appeared to be the most problematic, followed by item 10 of "Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed" (14 SRs/MAs did not assess the publication bias) and item 11 of "Was the conflict of interest stated" (14 SRs/MAs did not provide the conflict of interest and 4 were incomplete). ConclusionThe methodological quality of included SRs/MAs is poor. The limited evidence showed that spinal manipulation is more effective for acute low back pain than chronic low back pain, and the short term effect is better than the long term one. Different spinal manipulation techniques have various effects but are all safe. Chiropractic manipulation may have the best effect. Due to the limitation of quality and quantity of included SRs/MAs, there may be potential bias in the above conclusion that needs more high quality studies to verify.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) of lanthanum carbonate in the treatment of chronic kidney disease with hyperphosphatemia. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP to collect systematic reviews and meta-analysis about lanthanum carbonate in the treatment of chronic kidney disease with hyperphosphatemia from inception to August 31st, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data, then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies and the GRADE tool was used to grade the evidence quality of outcome measures included in the SRs. ResultsA total of eight relevant SRs were included and containing three main outcome measures. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:four SRs were of high quality, and the other four were of medium quality. GRADE results showed:for serum phosphorus level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were medium, low and very low; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, four SRs were low, low, low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was low. For serum calcium level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were high, medium and low, respectively; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, five SRs were low, low, low, very low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was very low. For serum iPTH level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were medium, low and very low; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, five SRs were medium, low, low, very low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was low. ConclusionAt present, methodological quality assessment for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease with lanthanum carbonate is generally not high and the level of evidence for the conclusion is generally low. In drug safety, especially in the occurrence of adverse events of the digestive system is still controversial, and a large amount of high quality experimental is needed to demonstrate the safety of its long-term use. Clinicians need to be cautious in using these evidence to make clinical decisions.
ObjectiveTo investigate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China, so as to improve the quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses in this field. MethodsThe literatures were retrieved from CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, CMCI, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library from the establishment date to March 17th, 2016. According to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, authors independently screened and extracted the published information. Reporting and methodological quality of included reviews were evaluated by PRIMSA statements and AMSTAR checklists. Data analysis was conducted by using Excel 2013 software and SPSS 20.0 software. ResultsOne thousand and eighteen systematic reviews/ meta-analyses were included, including 871 Chinese literatures and 147 English literatures. The average score of PRIMSA was 18.41±2.84, and the average score of AMSTAR was 7.38±1.28. The main problems of PRIMSA were structured summary, objectives, protocol and registration, additional analyses and funding. The main problems of AMSTAR were priori design, status of publication and list of studies (included and excluded). Univariate analysis showed that some factors could improve the quality of methodology and reporting, including studies in English (P<0.000 1), published after checklists' (P<0.000 1), hospital in higher-level (P<0.000 1), illuminating the funding or interest conflict (P<0.000 1). Pearson analysis indicated that linear correlation were detected between PRISMA scores and AMSTAR scores (P<0.000 1), as well as citations and AMSTAR scores (P=0.045). ConclusionEvidenced-based pharmacy in hospital has developed rapidly, the quality of methodology and reporting have increaseed year by year, but further improvement should be considered in different aspects. The methods to evaluate the clinical application of these systematic reviews/ meta-analyses should be developed in the future.
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 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.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsDatabase including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched from inception to December 2016 to collect SRs/MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting and methodological qualities using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR tool.ResultsTwenty-seven SRs/MAs of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM were included in this overview. The average score of AMSTAR was 7.04. The worst score were the item 1 (26 studies didn't provide an ‘a priori’ design), item 4 (10 studies didn't provide whether the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?), item 10 and item 11 (15 studies didn't assess the likelihood of publication bias and the potential conflicts of interest). The PRISMA score ranged from 17.0 to 24.5. The main problems of reporting were protocol and registration, search, additional analyses and funding.ConclusionThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs/MAs of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes are not high.