ObjectiveTo provide a reference for developing search strategy of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of animal researches (ARs) in future, we investigated and analyzed the search strategy of SRs/MAs of ARs at home and abroad. MethodsOvid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMbase, Ovid-BIOSIS previews, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from inception to January 2015, to collect SRs/MAs of ARs that related to medicine. No limitation in species. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted basic characteristics, databases and other sources searched, characteristics of reported search strategy of included studies. ResultA total of 181 SRs/MAs of ARs were finally included. Less than 30% SRs/MAs searched more than three databases, 65.7% reported supplementary retrieval. 86.2% (156/181) SRs/MAs reported search terms, but only 12 reported search strategy; the search terms of 33 studies included specific name of animal, 27 studies used "animal/experimental model/", 20 studies used "limit to animal". 71.3% SRs/MAs reported specific time limitation of searching, 44.2% reported whether limited language, 23.8% of them limited language, and more of these limited to English. ConclusionAt present, there are still some problems in SRs/MAs of ARs at home and abroad when choice database, search terms and search strategy, so we advise that:1) It's necessary to choice typical databases as many as possible according to search field; 2) Using specific animal's name and (or) "animal" as one of search terms, and using "limit to animal" according to characteristic of different databases; 3) The reporting of search strategy of SRs/MAs of ARs should include search sources, time limitation, language limitation, limitation of inclusion type, search terms and complete search strategy, besides, reporting knowledge of reviewers is also necessary; 4) To improve transparency and clarity of SRs/MAs of ARs, some related journals should introduce "reporting complete search strategy" in their instruction for authors.
ObjectiveTo carry out a retrospective study of the reporting quality and current situation of the systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) in pediatric field in China, as well as compliance with the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. MethodsSeven core Chinese pediatric journals were hand-searched. Two reviewers extracted data independently using predesigned data extraction form, crosschecked data, and discussed to solve discrepancy. The PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality respectively, and subgroup analysis was conducted by different total cites and different published time. SPSS 22.0 was used to for statistical analysis. Percentage was used to describe categorical data and Chi-square test was used to compare the difference among groups. ResultsA total of 157 SRs/MA were included. The proportion of SRs/MA related to interventions was the biggest (61.1%, 96 SRs/MA). (1) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions in the PRISMA checklist was better:the coincidence rate of twenty entries was above 50%; (2) The coincidence rate of observational SRs/MA in the MOOSE guidelines was not so good:the coincidence rate of 15 entries was less than 50%, even some of them were less than 20%. There were no significant difference between different total cites (≤5 vs. > 5) in PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. (3) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions had been improved to some extent in most of items after the PRISMA guidelines published, and the differences were statistically significant respectively in No. 8, 19, 20, and 23 (P≤0.05). ConclusionsThe number of SRs/MA published in the pediatric journals in China is increasing generally, the coincidence rate of SRs/MAs related to interventions have been obviously improved after the PRISMA guidelines published, and it's better than the coincidence rate of observational SRs/MAs in MOOSE guidelines. In a word, we should pay more attention to the quality of SRs/MAs, but not just the number.