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 survey the current situation of the systematic review (SR)/ meta-analysis (MA) related to interventions published in the Chinese medical journals entitled with evidence-based. Methods According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (2001.1 to 2011.12), the Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine (2001.1 to 2011.12), the Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Pediatrics (2006.1 to 2011.12) and the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine (2008.1 to 2011.12) were searched for SRs/MAs related to interventions. Two reviewers extracted data independently using predesigned a data extraction form, crosschecked data, and discussed to solve discrepancy. Excel software was used to for statistical analysis. Results A total of 487 SRs/MAs were included. 379 (77.82%) SRs/MAs were published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 70 (14.38%) in the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 30 (6.17%) in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics, and 8 (1.63%) in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine. The number of SRs/MAs published generally increased during 2001 to 2011. The number of author of SRs/MAs was 5±2, the number of studies that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SRs/MAs varied from 1 to 129 (median: 8), involving 20 diseases. 83 (17.04%) SRs/MAs focused on neoplasms, 64 (17.04%) on diseases of the circulatory system, and 54 (11.09%) on diseases of the genitourinary system. 82.75% of the included 487 SRs/MAs assessed the methodological quality of included RCTs. 44 (9.03%) SRs/MAs mentioned the methods of quality assessment, without reporting the results. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias was the most frequently used for evaluation (314 SRs/MAs, 64.48%). Conclusion The number of SRs/MAs related to interventions published in the journals entitled with evidence-based is increasing generally and their topics are extensive. However, further studies should be improved in the aspects of selecting and applying the quality assessment criteria of randomized controlled trials.
Objective To learn the bibliometric characteristics of Chinese ophthalmological papers indexed in SCI database from 2007 to 2011.Methods All the ophthalmological papers published in the source journals indexed in the SCI database from 2007 to 2011 were retrieved. The papers of first authors were manually selected for bibliometric analysis.Results The ophthalmological papers published by Chinese scholars as the first author were 478, 482, 698, 791, and 1049 from 2007 to 2011 (total 3498). The five institutions that published papers in the most were Sun Yat-sen University, Capital University of Medical Sciences, Fudan University, Hong Kong Chinese University and Shanghai Jiaotong University. The papers were distributed in 625 journals. The top five journals the papers were published in were Molecular Vision (332), International Journal of Ophthalmology (268), Investigative Ophthalmology amp; Visual Science (206), Chinese Medical Journal (109), and Graefeprime;s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (104). The 3498 papers were cited 12 030 times, 3.44 times per paper. The rate of non-cited articles for 5 year,3 year and 2 year periods were 12.55%, 24.21% and 38.43% respectively. Conclusions Chinese ophthalmological papers indexed in SCI database have gradually increased. Chinese ophthalmological papers mainly originate in the affiliated hospital of universities and colleges. There are four ophthalmologic professional periodicals included in the top five in the quantity of articles.
Objective To compare articles published in global primary journals titled “evidence-based” via bibliometric analysis in order to provide suggestion for evidence-based research and development of related journals. Methods We searched electronic databases to retrieve global primary journals titled “evidence-based”, and collected their impact factors, article click, download and citation frequency through the journal’s website and related citation databases. Results Three English and 4 Chinese primary journals titled “evidence-based” met the inclusion criteria. (1) Citation frequency: Evidence-Based Complementary amp; Alternative Medicine and Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing were indexed by SCI with impact factor over 1 (5th and 13th in relevant subject category), and their immediacy index was about 7 times as much as that of Chinese journals (0.2 vs 0.03). Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics (CJEBP) had the highest impact factor among 4 Chinese journals (0.946, 23rd in the relevant subject category), while Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine had the highest immediacy index with 0.07; (2) Download frequency: Journal of Evidencebased Medicine (JEBM) had the highest download frequency per article in database (72 vs 23), but the website download frequencies per article of CJEBM and CJEBP were about 5 to 6 times as much as that of database; (3) Number of articles published: Two English journals published the fewest articles but with the highest impact factors. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine had the 2nd highest impact factor although published the most articles, as well as the highest download frequency and immediacy index among the 4 Chinese journals. It suggested that there was no direct relationship between the number of the published articles and the impact factor of a journal. Conclusion The impact of English journals is better than that of Chinese journals. CJEBM and CJEBP are the top 2 ones among the Chinese journals with open access websites. The selection of articles should be driven by readers’ demand, and the impact of journals could be improved by online publication with open access.
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.
Objective To assess the frequency and the proportion of correct use of statistical analytic methods in five Chinese otorhinolaryngological journals from 2000 to 2002. Methods The statistical methods used in all original articles (n=1 331) published in these journals in three years were evaluated. Results Only 52.0 % of the articles were used statistical analytic methods. And the frequency was higher in basic research (63.5%) than that in clinical research (48.7%) (P＜0.01). The proportions of correct use of statistical analytic methods in the five journals varied from 48.7% to 72.7%, with an average rate of 56.5%. The most frequently used statistical methods were t tests (37.9%), contingency tables (chi-square test) (28.2%) and ANOVAs (14.3%). The most common errors were on the presentation of P values without specifying the test used, using t tests instead of ANOVAs in the comparison among three and more groups, and using unpaired t tests when paired tests were required. Conclusions The rate of application statistical analytic methods is rather high, but incorrect or inappropriate use remain a serious problem.
目的:探讨老年人自发性气胸的临床特点、治疗及预后。方法:对本院在2005年11月至2008年4月间收治的79例老年人自发性气胸患者临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果:老年人自发性气胸大多有肺部基础疾病,临床表现缺乏特异性,本组误诊为慢性阻塞性肺病急性发作4例、左心衰2例、支气管哮喘1例。气胸类型: 张力性气胸47例(72.1%),闭合性气胸11例,交通性气胸21例。采用以肋间闭式引流的为主的治疗措施,效果好。结论:老年人自发性气胸大多有肺部基础疾病, 易误诊,气胸的类型以张力性气胸多见,治疗多需排气减压术,及早的排气减压可望缓解症状,缩短肺复张时间,减少患者住院天数, 降低死亡率,提高老年人生活质量。
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of meta-analysis published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing.MethodsCNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect meta-analysis which published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing from inception to December 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and the reporting quality by AMSTAR scale and PRISMA statement. Statistical analysis was then performed by using SPSS 19.0 software.ResultsA total of 53 meta-analyses were included, which involved 7 disease systems and sub-health status. The mean score of the methodological assessment by AMSTAR was 7.75±1.32, including 9 high-quality papers (17.0%), 41 middle-quality papers (77.4%), and 3 low-quality papers (5.6%). The mean score of the reporting quality assessment by PRISMA was 22.5±3.08, including 39 relatively complete papers (73.6%), 11 papers with certain defects (20.8%), and 3 papers with serious defects (5.6%).ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing deserves further improvement.
Objectives To investigate the participation of magazines or journals' editors in the clinical practice guidelines in China. Methods WanFang Data, VIP, CNKI, CBM databases, as well as Baidu, Google and www.medlive.cn were searched online to collect incorporated guidelines in which magazines or journal editors participated in. Data was then analyzed. Results In total, 68 guidelines were selected, with 51 (75.00%) led by magazines and 17 (25.00%) edited by editors. 55 guidelines (80.88%) were the same in published and participated journals. Circulatory diseases (27.94%), diagnosis and treatment (54.41%) were the most concerned. 15 guidelines (22.06%) were updated. 17 guidelines reported the roles of the editors who were mostly expert group members (13.24%). 7 guidelines, 3 of which affirmed no relevant conflicts of interest, reported the sponsorship. The quality was higher than the domestic average while lower than the international guidelines. Conclusions The number of clinical practice guidelines magazines or editors participating in China is relatively small, while the quality was higher. The primary form of the participation is journal-led, however, the process, methods, roles, and conflicts of interest in the guidelines require further definition.