ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses on acupuncture focusing on literature screening results and explore the influencing factors of the complete reporting.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases were searched to collect SRs/meta-analyses on acupuncture from inception to December 31st, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the reporting quality of literature screening results of SRs/meta-analyses on acupuncture based on PRISMA statement. Logistic regression model analysis was applied to explore the influencing factors of the complete reporting rate of literature screening results. Statistical analysis was performed by using Excel 2016 and SPSS 16.0 software.ResultsA total of 1 227 SRs/meta-analyses were included. Only 62.3% SRs fully reported the four parts of literature screening results. The parts with a low reporting rate included the number of studies assessed for eligibility (73.2%) and the reasons for exclusions at each stage (67.0%). And the reporting rate of the literature screening flowchart was also low (63.6%). The reporting rate of literature screening results in Chinese SRs was lower than that in English SRs, and there was significantly statistical difference (P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the type of published journal, publication year, pages of article and the number of searched databases were correlated with the complete reporting rate of literature screening results (P<0.001).ConclusionsThe complete reporting rate of the literature screening results of SRs on acupuncture is low, especially in Chinese SRs. The complete reporting rate of literature screening results is significantly higher for SRs published after PRISMA statement, in SCI journals, with longer length and more searched databases.
Structured template and reporting tool for real world evidence (STaRT-RWE) was developed by a team led by professor Shirley V Wang of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, which is to plan and report on the implementation of real world evidence (RWE) studies on the safety and efficacy of treatments. The template, published in the journal BMJ in January 2021, has been endorsed by the International Society of PharmacoEpidemiology and the Transparency Initiative promoted by the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcome Research. This article interprets its entries to promote the understanding and application of STaRT-RWE by domestic scholars engaged in real world study, and help to improve the transparency, repeatability, and accuracy of RWE research.
With the encouragement of national policy on drug and medical device innovation, multi-center clinical trials and multi-regional clinical trials are facing an unprecedented opportunity in China. Trials with a multi-center design are far more common at present than before. However, it should be recognized there still exists shortcomings in current multi-center trials. In this paper, we summarize the problems and challenges and provide corresponding resolutions with the aim to reduce heterogeneity between study centers and avoid excessive center effects in treatment. It is urgent to develop design, implementation and reporting guidelines to improve the overall quality of multi-center clinical trials.
Based on previous evidence-based researches and teaching experience, our team conducted literature and book review, and summarized 4 requirements, 1) effect measure calculation and conversion, 2) registration of evidence-based research, 3) evidence-based research database and 4) quality evaluation tools and reporting guidelines. We developed an online platform of evidence-based medicine research helper using the front-end and back-end technology, which can be accessed using www.ebm-helper.cn. Currently, the online tool has included 46 scenarios for effect measure calculation and conversion, introduction of 7 evidence-based research registration platforms, 26 commonly used databases for evidence-based research and 29 quality evaluation tools and reporting guidelines. This online tool can help researchers to solve specific problems encountered in different stages of evidence-based medicine research. Promoting the application of this platform in evidence-based medicine will help researchers to use the tool scientifically and improve research efficiency.
N-of-1 trials are prospective clinical randomized cross-over controlled trials with multiple rounds of trial phase alternation designed with regard to a single patient. N-of-1 trials can provide clinical decision-makers with high-level evidence of the comparison of effect of intervention measures. Recently, an international team composed of many scholars published a SPIRIT extension for N-of-1 trials list (SPENT 2019) on the BMJ, with the purposes of clarifying the content design and improving the integrity and transparency of N-of-1 trial protocols. This article showed a detailed interpretation of the 14 main extension sub-items of the SPENT 2019 list with specific cases, aiming to further standardize the publication of domestic N-of-1 trials.
ObjectiveTo investigate the application status of survival analysis in studies published in Chinese oncology journals, and assess their reporting quality and summarize the existing problems, so as to promote the application of survival analysis and reporting quality. MethodsStudies that used survival analysis were collected from 1 492 studies published in Chinese Journal of Oncology, Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology, Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology and Chinese Journal of Cancer Prevention and Treatment in 2013. The application status of survival analysis of included studies was analysed and their reporting quality was evaluated. ResultsA total of 242 survival analysis studies were included. Among them, the utilization rates of Kaplan-Meier method, life table method, log-rank test, Breslow test and Cox proportional hazards model were 91.74%, 3.72%, 78.51%, 0.41% and 46.28%, respectively. 112 studies did multivariate analysis through Cox proportional hazards model. A total of 396 end points and 10 different types of survival time were reported. Overall survival (OS) was reported in 233 studies (92.15%). Survival terms were defined to 158 end points (39.90%) of 103 studies (42.56%). The follow-up rates were mentioned in 155 studies (64.05%), of which 4 studies were under 80% and the lowest was 75.25%, 55 studies were 100%. The main problems of survival analysis studies published in Chinese journals were as follows:None of the studies which used Cox proportional hazards model reported the proportional hazards assumption. None of the studies used the method of parametric survival analysis. 130 studies (53.72%) did not use the method of multiple factor analysis. 139 studies (57.44%) did not define the survival terms. Only 11 of 100 studies which reported loss to follow-up had stated how to treat it in the analysis. None of the studies reported the methods of calculating sample size. None of the studies reported the censoring proportion. ConclusionThe methods of survival analysis are used in a low rate in studies published in Chinese oncology journals, and the overall reporting quality of survival analyses is poor. So the reporting guideline of survival analysis should be developed and the authors should be encouraged to cooperate with professional statisticians, in order to improve the design, analysis and reporting quality of survival analysis studies.
The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) is a latest guide tool made by Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) group. It can enhance the transparency and completeness of Core Outcome Set (COS) report. This paper introduces the generation process, report items and application of COS-STAR to provide reference for domestic similar researches.
ObjectiveTo systematically sort out acupuncture therapy research report specification issues and provide a reference for the selection of key problems in the specification of acupuncture therapy network meta-analysis reports. MethodsComputer searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases were conducted to collect studies related to reporting norms for acupuncture therapy, with a search time from inception to November 2022. Questions were constructed according to the SPIDER model and inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed. CASP was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included literature, and a qualitative systematic evaluation thematic synthesis method was used to analyze, summarize, and integrate the questions on reporting norms for acupuncture therapy research evidence to create a pool of question entries. ResultsA total of 66 papers covering four countries were included, including 17 papers from qualitative studies and 49 papers from quantitative studies. The CASP evaluation results showed that the overall quality of the included studies was high, and the quality of the English studies was higher than that of the Chinese studies. The thematic synthesis method resulted in 22 question entries in 7 categories. The 7 categories of questions included title, abstract, preface, methods, results, discussion and other report specification questions. The 22 entries included "Is there a need to report specific types of acupuncture therapy", "Is there a need to report based on the type of original study and its number", etc. ConclusionThere are many problems with reporting norms in existing acupuncture studies, so it is necessary to collate and summarize the key issues of reporting norms for acupuncture network meta-analysis to provide a scientific and theoretical basis for the development of reporting guidelines for acupuncture network meta-analysis.
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.
In recent years, the number of randomized controlled trials using cohorts and routinely collected data (e.g., electronic health records, administrative databases, and health registries) has increased. Such trials can ease the challenges of conducting research and save cost and time. Accordingly, to standardize such trials and increase the transparency and completeness of research reports, an international panel of experts developed the CONSORT-ROUTINE (2021) reporting guideline. The reporting guideline was published in 2021 in the BMJ. To help understand and formally apply the reporting guideline and improve the overall quality of this type of study, the present paper introduced and interpreted the development process and reporting checklist of the CONSORT-ROUTINE.