Objective To assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions published in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine by PRISMA guidelines, and to analyze its influencing factors. Methods The systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions were searched in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from its inception to 2011. The quality of the included reviews was assessed in accordance with the PRISMA checklist. Based on the degree of conformity with each criterion of PRISMA, the reviews were scored as “1”, “0.5” or “0” orderly. The data were put into Excel, and the Meta-analyst software was used for statistical analysi. Results Among all literature in the volume 11 (95) of the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from 2001 to 2011, a total of 379 studies were included, and the number of publication showed a yearly rising trend. The PRISMA scale score ranged from 8.5 to 26 (X±SD) was 19.97±3.15. Among all studies, 25 (6.60%) scored 21-27 points, which were regarded as the complete reporting; 226 (59.63%) scored 15-21 points, regarded as relatively complete reporting; and 128 (33.77%) scored less than 15 points, regarded as serious lack of information. The results of stratified analysis showed that, both the issue of PRISMA and fund support could improve the reporting quality, with a significant difference (Plt;0.05); and authors more than 3, authors from universities, and authors from more than 2 institutions could improve the reporting quality, but without a significant difference (Pgt;0.05). Conclusion The overall reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine is poor, and it is influenced by the factors of protocol and registration, risk of bias across studies, other analyses, and fund support, which have to be taken seriously. The reasonable utilization of the PRISMA checklist will improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses.
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 assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine by CONSORT statement and Jadad scale. Methods We handsearched the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine to identify TCM RCTs. The revised CONSORT statement and Jadad scale combined with self-established criteria were applied. Results A total of 57 RCTs were identified of which there were 17 TCM RCTs. Some items in CONSORT checklist were completely reported in all TCM RCTs, such as abstract, inclusion and exclusion criteria, intervention, randomization sequence generation, description of statistic method, description of baseline data, outcomes and estimation, and explain results. Compared with the previous findings, there were more trials in this study to report allocation concealment, randomization implementation, use of flow chart and appliance. Only 3 RCTs (17.6%) reported acknowledgements. One RCT did not describe syndrome type of TCM, and 4 RCTs (23.5%) carried out dummy. The mean Jadad score was 4.35±1.11 in all trials, of which 11 RCTs (64.7) ranked 5 points. Conclusion The comprehensive quality of reporting of TCM RCTs published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from 2001 to 2008 has been improved. After the publication of CONSORT statement and CONSORT for traditional Chinese medicine, the quality of reporting of TCM RCTs is improved. We are looking forward to improving the CONSORT for TCM.