Objective To retrospectively analyze the search strategy of systematic reviews/meta-analyses(SRs/MAs) of nursing researches, and to provide the references for developing search strategy of SRs/MAs of nurse researchers in future. Methods The SRs/MAs in nursing journals from CSCD and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 2015. Four reviewers independently screened literatures and extracted data. Then data analysis was conducted by using Excel 2007 software. Results A total of 112 nursing SRs/MAs were finally included, 44 were published in English and 68 were published in Chinese. 37.5% (42/112) SRs/MAs reported the flow charts, 13.39% (15/112) reported the knowledge of reviewers, and 8.04% (9/112) reported the comprehensive search strategies. 48.21% SRs/MAs searched less than five databases, 15% SRs/MAs searched more than ten databases. 45.54% SRs/MAs reported supplementary retrieval, 8.93% searched the gray literatures. Patients combined with intervention was the most way in searching. Conclusion There are still some limitations in search strategy of SRs/MAs for nursing studies. We advise that: (1) it’s necessary to choice typical databases as many as possible according to search field; (2) the reporting of search strategy of nursing SRs/MAs should reporte knowledge of reviewers; (3) to improve transparency and quality of SRs/MAs in nursing researches, journals should introduce reporting complete search strategy in their instruction for authors.
At present, systematic reviews of animal experimental studies has become a new trend and an important way to synthesize the results of animal experimental studies, improve the conducting and reporting quality of animal experimental studies and provide references for the furture clinical research. However, there are many problems in the design and implementation process of published systematic reviews of animal experimental studies. Therefore, it is important to design a scientific and standard practical process to improve the quality of systematic reviews of animal experimental studies. In this paper, we developed a standard process for systematic reviews of animal experimental studies, in order to improve the quality of systematic reviews of animal experimental studies.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of animal experiments published in high impact journals, in order to provide references for improving the quality of animal experiments.MethodsCSCD and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect intervening primordial animal experiments from 2014 to August, 2016. Four reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies by using SYRCLE tool.ResultsA total of 1 999 animal experiments were included. The cited frequency of more than 90% studies were ≤5 times, and of which 52.53% studies were zero. The results of SYRCLE evaluation showed that 54.55% of sub items rated as "low risk" were less than 30%. And 84.62% of them were less than 10%.ConclusionThere are defeet in methodological quality of animal experiments either domestic or abroad. The problems of domestic researches in implementation bias, measurement bias and loss of access bias are particularly obvious. The coincidence rates of "low risk" are much lower than those of abroad studies. Therefore, we suggest that it is necessary to take specific measures to popularize SYRCLE tool to effectively guide the development of animal experiments and improve the design and implementation of animal experiments.
ObjectivesTo survey the current research situation, methodological and reporting quality of the systematic review/meta-analysis (SRs/MAs) of animal studies.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, BIOSIS Previews, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were searched to collect SRs/MAs of animal studies from inception to June 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, a descriptive analysis was then conducted.ResultsA total of 609 SRs/MAs of animal studies were included, which were from 27 countries and published in 526 journals. Merely 36.8% (224/609) studies assessed the risk of bias in the original animal experiments. Less than 50% studies reported the method of literature selection (41.9%, 255/609), data abstraction (32.0%, 195/609) and study characteristics (41.2%, 251/609).ConclusionsThe published SRs/MAs of animal studies is poor in both methodological and reporting quality. Thus, we hope to improve awareness and actual use rates of these guidelines by basic medical researchers and journal editors, thereby improving the quality of animal experimental methods and reporting standards.
ObjectivesUsing the ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research Reporting: In Vivo Experiments Guidelines) to carry out a retrospective study of the reporting quality of animal studies published in Chinese journals.MethodsWe searched databases including CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM to July, 2018. Four reviewers independently screened literatures and extracted data. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess reporting quality and the comparative analysis based on different published time.ResultsA total of 4 342 studies were included. About the cited frequency, 73.03% studies were ≤5, and merely 29.04% studies were published in journals of CSCD. The assessment results showed that the number of reported items with "low risk" in the ARRIVE guidelines, which have 20 items, that meaning 39 sub items, more than half of sub items (51.28%, 20/39) rated as "low risk" had a compliance rate of less than 50%. Among them, 65.00% (13/20) of sub items had a lower rate of compliance with "low risk" than 10%.ConclusionThe reporting quality of domestic animal studies is generally low. The coincidence rate of domestic animal studies has been improved to some extent in most of items after the ARRIVE guidelines published, however, some items of methodology, results and conclusions had problems with insufficient reporting. Therefore, we suggest that it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate more researchers following the ARRIVE guidelines and promote endorsement of the ARRIVE Guideline by Chinese Journals to improve the design, implementation and reporting of animal experiments, and ultimately enhance the quality of animal studies.