Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Published in Chinese Pediatric Journals: A Retrospective Study_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

 LIUDeng-rui ¹ ^# ,  XUJia-ke ^2,3 ^# , MATing ^2,3 , XIEYu-sang ^2,4 , HUFang ^2,4 , LIXiao-feng ^2,4 , QULi-na ^2,4 , TANGXiao-yu ² , MABin ² ,  GAOMing-tai ¹

1. Department of Pediatric Surgery, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 73000, China;
2. Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
3. The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 73000, China;
4. The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 73000, China;

Corresponding?author：

GAOMing-tai, Email: ldyy6865@163.com

Keywords：

Pediatrics; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; PRISMA; MOOSE

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20160203

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To carry out a retrospective study of the reporting quality and current situation of the systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) in pediatric field in China, as well as compliance with the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Methods Seven core Chinese pediatric journals were hand-searched. Two reviewers extracted data independently using predesigned data extraction form, crosschecked data, and discussed to solve discrepancy. The PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality respectively, and subgroup analysis was conducted by different total cites and different published time. SPSS 22.0 was used to for statistical analysis. Percentage was used to describe categorical data and Chi-square test was used to compare the difference among groups. Results A total of 157 SRs/MA were included. The proportion of SRs/MA related to interventions was the biggest (61.1%, 96 SRs/MA). (1) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions in the PRISMA checklist was better:the coincidence rate of twenty entries was above 50%; (2) The coincidence rate of observational SRs/MA in the MOOSE guidelines was not so good:the coincidence rate of 15 entries was less than 50%, even some of them were less than 20%. There were no significant difference between different total cites (≤5 vs. > 5) in PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. (3) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions had been improved to some extent in most of items after the PRISMA guidelines published, and the differences were statistically significant respectively in No. 8, 19, 20, and 23 (P≤0.05). Conclusions The number of SRs/MA published in the pediatric journals in China is increasing generally, the coincidence rate of SRs/MAs related to interventions have been obviously improved after the PRISMA guidelines published, and it's better than the coincidence rate of observational SRs/MAs in MOOSE guidelines. In a word, we should pay more attention to the quality of SRs/MAs, but not just the number.

Citation： LIUDeng-rui, XUJia-ke, MATing, XIEYu-sang, HUFang, LIXiao-feng, QULi-na, TANGXiao-yu, MABin, GAOMing-tai. Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Published in Chinese Pediatric Journals: A Retrospective Study. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2016, 16(11): 1345-1353. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20160203 Copy

1.	Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence based medicine:how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. London:Churchill Livingstone. 2000:1-50.
2.	Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials:an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials, 1995, 16(1):62-73.
3.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ, 1997, 156(10):1411-1416.
4.	Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, et al. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature:a critical appraisal. Ann Surg, 2005, 241(3):450-459.
5.	Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med, 2007, 4(3):e78.
6.	Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, et al. Meta-analyses in ortho-paedic surgery:a systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2001, 83-A (1):15-24.
7.	Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, et al. Evaluating the quality of sys-tematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med, 2001, 38(5):518-526.
8.	Richards D. The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent, 2004, 5(1):17.
9.	Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, et al. Examining the evidence in an-esthesia literature:a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg, 2001, 92(3):700-709.
10.	Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care, 2005, 9(5):R575-R582.
11.	Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials:the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 1999, 354(9193):1896-1900.
12.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(10):1006-1012.
13.	Shen JT, Yao L, Li YP, et al. Visualization studies on evidence-based medicine domain knowledge (series 3):visualization for dissemination of evidence-based medicine information. J Evid-based Med, 2011, 11(8):96-105.
14.	Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology:a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA, 2000, 283(15):2008-2012.
15.	李青, 夏蕓牟, 鈺潔, 等.國內中文期刊發表的中醫藥系統綜述和Meta分析文獻質量再評價.北京中醫藥大學學報(中醫臨床版), 2012, 19(3):28-33.
16.	王靖, 劉琴, 翁淳光, 等.國內公共衛生研究領域系統評價/Meta分析的質量評價.中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(12):1367-1374.
17.	安妮, 徐俊峰, 葛龍, 等.《中國循證兒科雜志》發表的干預類系統評價/Meta分析報告質量評價.中國循證兒科雜志, 2013, 8(2):110-115.
18.	劉巧蘭, 李曉松, 倪宗瓚.純母乳喂養預防嬰兒腹瀉的Meta分析.中國公共衛生, 1999, 15(6):504-505.
19.	Jadad AR, Moher D, Klassen TP. Guides for reading an d interpreting systematic reviews:Ⅱ. how did the authors find the studies and assess their quality? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 1998, 152(8):812-817.
20.	王小琴, 韋當, 劉雅莉, 等. PRISMA聲明應用現狀調查.中國循證醫學雜志, 2014, 14(9):1160-1164.
21.	Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions4.2.5. The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, UK, 2005.
22.	Dickersin K, Hewitt P, Mutch L. Comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal clinical trials data base. Control Clin Trials, 1986, 6(4):306-317.
23.	孫福紅, 魏水易, 許自明.隨機對照試驗meta分析的質量評價.藥物流行病學雜志, 2002, 11(1):31-35.
24.	The WHO:International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Frequently asked questions. Available at:http://www.who.int/entity/ictrp/faq/en/index.html.
25.	Cleophas RC, Cleophas TJ. Is selective reporting of clinical research unethical as well as unscientific? Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 1999, 37(1):1-7.
26.	Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, et al. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ, 2000, 320(7249):1574-1577.
27.	《臨床兒科雜志》稿約.臨床兒科雜志, 2016, 34(1):78-80.
28.	《中國循證兒科雜志》稿約.中國循證兒科雜志, 2016, 11(1):8-80.
29.	《中國當代兒科雜志》稿約. 2016.
30.	《中國實用兒科雜志》稿約. 2016.
31.	《中華實用兒科臨床雜志》稿約. 2012, 27(1):75-76.
32.	《中華兒科雜志》稿約.中華兒科雜志, 2006, 44(7):558-559.
33.	《中華小兒外科雜志》稿約. 2006.
34.	Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, et al. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy:Case study. BMJ, 2006, 322(7535):202-209.
35.	Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression:Systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet, 2004, 363:1341-1345.
36.	Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality:systematic review. BMJ, 2003, 326:1167-1170.

1. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence based medicine:how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. London:Churchill Livingstone. 2000:1-50.
2. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials:an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials, 1995, 16(1):62-73.
3. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ, 1997, 156(10):1411-1416.
4. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, et al. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature:a critical appraisal. Ann Surg, 2005, 241(3):450-459.
5. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med, 2007, 4(3):e78.
6. Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, et al. Meta-analyses in ortho-paedic surgery:a systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2001, 83-A (1):15-24.
7. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, et al. Evaluating the quality of sys-tematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med, 2001, 38(5):518-526.
8. Richards D. The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent, 2004, 5(1):17.
9. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, et al. Examining the evidence in an-esthesia literature:a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg, 2001, 92(3):700-709.
10. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care, 2005, 9(5):R575-R582.
11. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials:the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 1999, 354(9193):1896-1900.
12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(10):1006-1012.
13. Shen JT, Yao L, Li YP, et al. Visualization studies on evidence-based medicine domain knowledge (series 3):visualization for dissemination of evidence-based medicine information. J Evid-based Med, 2011, 11(8):96-105.
14. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology:a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA, 2000, 283(15):2008-2012.
15. 李青, 夏蕓牟, 鈺潔, 等.國內中文期刊發表的中醫藥系統綜述和Meta分析文獻質量再評價.北京中醫藥大學學報(中醫臨床版), 2012, 19(3):28-33.
16. 王靖, 劉琴, 翁淳光, 等.國內公共衛生研究領域系統評價/Meta分析的質量評價.中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(12):1367-1374.
17. 安妮, 徐俊峰, 葛龍, 等.《中國循證兒科雜志》發表的干預類系統評價/Meta分析報告質量評價.中國循證兒科雜志, 2013, 8(2):110-115.
18. 劉巧蘭, 李曉松, 倪宗瓚.純母乳喂養預防嬰兒腹瀉的Meta分析.中國公共衛生, 1999, 15(6):504-505.
19. Jadad AR, Moher D, Klassen TP. Guides for reading an d interpreting systematic reviews:Ⅱ. how did the authors find the studies and assess their quality? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 1998, 152(8):812-817.
20. 王小琴, 韋當, 劉雅莉, 等. PRISMA聲明應用現狀調查.中國循證醫學雜志, 2014, 14(9):1160-1164.
21. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions4.2.5. The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, UK, 2005.
22. Dickersin K, Hewitt P, Mutch L. Comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal clinical trials data base. Control Clin Trials, 1986, 6(4):306-317.
23. 孫福紅, 魏水易, 許自明.隨機對照試驗meta分析的質量評價.藥物流行病學雜志, 2002, 11(1):31-35.
24. The WHO:International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Frequently asked questions. Available at:http://www.who.int/entity/ictrp/faq/en/index.html.
25. Cleophas RC, Cleophas TJ. Is selective reporting of clinical research unethical as well as unscientific? Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 1999, 37(1):1-7.
26. Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, et al. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ, 2000, 320(7249):1574-1577.
27. 《臨床兒科雜志》稿約.臨床兒科雜志, 2016, 34(1):78-80.
28. 《中國循證兒科雜志》稿約.中國循證兒科雜志, 2016, 11(1):8-80.
29. 《中國當代兒科雜志》稿約. 2016.
30. 《中國實用兒科雜志》稿約. 2016.
31. 《中華實用兒科臨床雜志》稿約. 2012, 27(1):75-76.
32. 《中華兒科雜志》稿約.中華兒科雜志, 2006, 44(7):558-559.
33. 《中華小兒外科雜志》稿約. 2006.
34. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, et al. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy:Case study. BMJ, 2006, 322(7535):202-209.
35. Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression:Systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet, 2004, 363:1341-1345.
36. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality:systematic review. BMJ, 2003, 326:1167-1170.

Previous Article
Guidelines on Non-pharmacology Management of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: A Systematic Review
Next Article
Development of Animal Burn Models in Rats: A Systematic Review

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Published in Chinese Pediatric Journals: A Retrospective Study

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content