ObjectiveTo systematically review methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of interventions in the global research field on gliomas. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and CBM were searched from inception to July 2013, for systematic reviews/meta-analyses of interventions in the research field on gliomas. Two reviewers independently screened literature. Then PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess and analysis methodological and reporting quality of included studies. ResultsA total of 51 systematic reviews or meta-analyses were identified. The results showed that the weakness of methodological quality mainly contained lack of study design, incomprehensive of literature search, limited form of included publications, lack of assessing publication bias, lack of reporting of conflict of interest. The weakness of reporting quality included incomplete reporting of literature search, quality assessment, risk of bias and results (some studies lacked forest plots, estimated value of pooled results, 95%CI, and heterogeneity). ConclusionThere are problems at different levels regarding current methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of interventions in the global research field on gliomas. The relevant researchers should improve the scientificity and standardization of systematic reviews/meta-analyses and report them according to the PRISMA statement.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the value of mass screening of serum pepsinogen test for Asian population with high-risk gastric carcinoma. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 12, 2013), CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM for diagnostic tests on serum pepsinogen test versus with pathological biopsy/X-ray examination (gold standard) between January 2004 and January 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of included studies. Then meta-analysis was conducted using Meta-DiSc software (version 1.4). ResultsA total of 15 studies involving 180 934 subjects were included. ROC curve showed "shoulder-arm shape" distribution. The results of Spearman correlation analysis suggested a significance of the threshold effect (P=0.001). The results of meta-analysis showed that, the area under curve (AUC) was 0.74. ConclusionSerum pepsinogen has good value in the screening of gastric carcinoma among Asian permanent residents. Due to limited quality of studies, the above conclusion should be verified by conducting more high quality studies.