ObjectiveTo systematically summarize and evaluate the existing evidence of Qishen Yiqi dropping pill (QSYQ) in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF), and to evaluate its quality. MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews/meta-analyses(SRs/MAs) related to objectives from inception to December 31, 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and quality of evidence of included SRs/MAs by using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic(ROBIS) scale, the list of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis(PRISMA), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ResultsThis overview included 17 SRs/MAs. The methodological quality, reporting quality, risk of bias, and quality of evidence for outcome measures of SRs/MAs were all unsatisfactory. All SRs/MAs were of low quality according to the results of the AMSTAR-2 assessment. And only a small number of SRs/MAs were assessed as low risk of bias based on the results of the ROBIS assessment. The evaluation results of the PRISMA checklist showed that the report quality of the 24 studies included was relatively complete. According to the GRADE system evaluation results, 94% of the 84 outcome indicators were low-quality and very low-quality evidence. Limitations were the main factors leading to their degradation, followed by publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision and indirectness. ConclusionAt present, QSYQ has good clinical efficacy in the treatment of CHF, but the standardization and scientificity of clinical research and secondary research reports are insufficient, resulting in low quality of clinical recommendations evidence. In the future, it is necessary to further standardize and improve the quality of clinical and secondary research.
Objective To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness, analyses the factors affecting it, so as to provide a reference basis for improving the methodological quality of related studies. Methods Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness were identified in PubMed, searching from its inception to 12 October 2024. Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness was included, the methodological quality of the included literature was evaluated using AMSTAR-2, and data were extracted using Excel 2021. Results A total of 308 systematic reviews/ meta-analysis were included, with a fluctuating upward trend in the number of publications from 2006 to 2024; of these, a total of 12 were rated as low quality. According to the AMSTAR-2 entries, the largest number of documents fully conformed to entry 16 (82.14%), followed by entry 5 (81.49%), and entry 8 (72.73%); one document conformed to entry 10 (0.32%), and relatively few conformed to entry 12 (68.83%), entry 13 (85.39%), and entry 15 (67.53%). ConclusionThe methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness needs to be improved, and the main problems include the lack of pre-study protocols, the absence of a list of excluded literature, and the less than adequate explanation of heterogeneity and risk of bias, etc. There is still a need to further improve the methodological quality of the systematic reviews and to promote the long-term development of evidence based medicine.