Objective To evaluate reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field in China. Methods CNKI database was searched for systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field from the establishment date to December 2011. Two reviewers independently identified the literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then extracted the data using Excel software. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively. Results A total of 63 systematic reviews or meta-analyses involving 21 systematic reviews and 42 meta-analyses were identified. These articles were published on 13 journals such as The Chinese Nursing Research, the Chinese Journal of Nursing, and the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The deficiencies of methodological quality mainly contained literature search, heterogeneity handling, recognition and assessment of publication bias. In addition, the deficiencies of reporting characteristics were reflected on incomplete reporting of literature search, quality assessment, risk of bias and results (some studies lacked forest plot, estimated value of pooled results, 95%CI or heterogeneity). Conclusion As a whole, the included reviews and meta-analyses have more or less flaws with regard to the quality of reporting and methodology based on the PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists. Focusing on the improvement of reporting and methodological quality of systematic review or meta-analysis in nursing field in China is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SRs/MAs) in fields of integrated Chinese-western therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MethodsSRs/MAs in fields of integrated Chinese-western therapy for NSCLC were searched inPubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to July 10th, 2016. We also handsearched relevant journals such as Chin J Evid-based Med and reference of included studies, and tried to find the grey literature for additional studies. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then methodological quality of included SRs/MAs were evaluated by AMSTAR scale. ResultsA total of 53 SRs/MAs were included, the highest and lowest scores of methodological quality were 9 and 1, respectively. The average score was 5.98±1.50. Results on the qualities of methodology or evaluation showed that 46 SRs/MAs (88.68%) was rated as moderate and 6 (11.32%) as low． The main problems were found in such areas as preliminary design scheme, literature searching, a list of included and excluded studies, etc.. ConclusionThe methodology of SRs/MAs in fields of integrated Chinese-western therapy for NSCLC have quality problems at different levels, further improvement should be expected.
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.
Objective To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched by computer, and the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of corticosteroid hormone as an auxiliary means for the treatment of severe pneumonia which were published from establishment of the databases to October 25th, 2018 were searched. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to evaluate the quality of literature reports. Results A total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, all of which were non-Cochrane systematic reviews. In terms of methodological quality assessed by AMSTAR-2, there was no plan in all studies; only one study explained the reasons for inclusion in the study type; eight studies did not describe the dose and follow-up time of the intervention/control measures in detail; three studies did not indicate the evaluation tools and did not describe the risk bias; six studies did not explicitly examine publication bias. In terms of reporting quality assessed by PRISMA, all studies had no pre-registered study protocol or registration number; thirteen studies did not describe the specific amount of articles retrieved from each database; three studies did not present their retrieval strategies or excluded reasons in detail; no funding sources were identified in included studies; eight studies reported both whether the study was funded and whether there was a conflict of interest. Conclusions At present, there are many systematic review/meta-analysis studies on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia, and the overall quality of the study has been gradually improved. However, the common problems in the study are relatively prominent. The follow-up period and dose of intervention in the study of severe pneumonia are different, so the baseline is difficult to be unified. Suggestions: strengthening the training of researchers, standardize the research process, and report articles in strict accordance with the PRISMA statement; subgroup analysis being conducted according to the dose and duration of the hormone.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus of chronic heart failure domestically and abroad.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases, and related websites were searched to collect guidelines and expert consensus on chronic heart failure published from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2020. Four reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of the guidelines and expert consensus with the AGREE Ⅱ tool after the consistency evaluation training.ResultsA total of 17 studies were included (consisting of 11 English and 6 Chinese studies). The recommended levels were B level (recommend after modification) for 10 studies and C level (not recommended) for 7 studies. The AGREE Ⅱ standardized mean scores for various fields were 69.61% (scope and purpose), 34.20% (stakeholder involvement), 33.13% (rigor of development), 84.53% (clarity and presentation), 42.40% (applicability), and 37.09% (editorial independence). The methodological quality of English guidelines was generally high (level B for 10 and level C for 1), while all scores of Chinese guidelines or consensus in the 6 fields were mostly lower than the average (level C for 6).ConclusionsThe guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure requires further improvement in terms of stakeholder involvement and rigor of development. It should develop standards and methods to improve the quality for Chinese guidelines and expert consensus to better serve clinical practice.
This paper summarizes the methodological quality assessment tools of artificial intelligence-based diagnostic test accuracy studies, and introduces QUADAS-AI and modified QUADAS-2. Moreover, this paper summarizes reporting guidelines of these studies as well, and then introduces specific reporting standards in AI-centred research, and checklist for AI in dental research.
This paper summarizes the methodological quality assessment tools of artificial intelligence-based diagnostic test accuracy studies, and introduces QUADAS-AI and modified QUADAS-2. Moreover, this paper summarizes reporting guidelines of these studies as well, and then introduces specific reporting standards in AI-centred research, and checklist for AI in dental research.