ObjectiveTo get known of the application of Preferred Items of Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA).
MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2013), CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI, to collect relevant literature about the application of PRISMA during 2009-2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and then bibliometric analysis was performed using Excel software.
ResultsWe finally included 175 papers, including 26 conference abstracts and 149 full texts. The results of bibliometric analysis of full texts showed that, they were published in 118 journals, and PRISMA official website announced that 176 journals endorsed the application of PRISMA. According to study type, there were 111 systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) for development and reporting, 20 overviews of SRs for reporting quality assessments, 7 versions of PRISMA interpretation, and 11 articles of other kinds. In 131 SRs/MAs as well as overviews, the studies about western medicine accounted for 77.8%, followed by public health (8.4%), and traditional Chinese medicine (4.6%).
ConclusionThe application of PRISMA statement is still at the first phase and mainly confined to the field of western medicine, which needs more attention and understanding. Thus, it's necessary to interpret and disseminate the PRISMA statement.
ObjectiveTo 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.
MethodsSeven 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.
ResultsA 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).
ConclusionsThe 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.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodology quality and report quality of the published systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of pediatric tuina domestically and abroad.MethodsCBM, VIP, CNKI, WanFang Data, PubMed, EMbase, and The Cochrane Library were electronically searched to collect published pediatric tuina SRs/MAs from inception to December 10th, 2018. The SRs/MAs which includes scale evaluation used AMSTAR2 and the PRISMA report quality evaluation tool to systematically review methodology, adopts Excel to carry out data collation and statistical analysis. ResultsA total of 18 studies (14 in Chinese and 4 in English) on the SRs/MAs of pediatric tuina were finally included. In terms of methodological quality, 6 studies were of low quality and 12 studies were of very low quality. All studies did not explain the reasons for adopting a particular research design type, and few of them explained the pre-plan, exclusion list, reasons and funding. In terms of report quality, 7 studies were relatively complete, 10 studies had certain defects and one study had serious defects. The existing problems were program and registration, comprehensive retrieval, information sources, financial support and so on. ConclusionsSRs/MAs of pediatric tuina have different degrees of issues in terms of methodological quality and report quality which still require further improvement and continuous strengthening.
ObjectiveTo overview the reporting and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis on acupuncture in the treatment of primary osteoporosis (POP).MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews/meta-analysis on acupuncture in the treatment of POP from inception to July 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the quality of systematic reviews. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) methodological quality score and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were used to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of the systematic reviews, along with the risk of homogeneity and publication bias.ResultsA total of 11 systematic reviews/meta-analysis were included and multiple evaluations of the radar plot showed that the quality average rank scored 7.68. The major problems in studies were lack of items registration, imperfect search strategies and selection bias and so on.ConclusionThe quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of acupuncture in the treatment of POP is insufficient, indicating that the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews should be further strengthened.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews on efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen in treatment of diabetic foot.MethodsCNKI, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data, The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMbase databases were searched to collect systematic reviews or meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic foot from inception to November 17th, 2019. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then, AMSTAR 2 tool and PRISMA statement were used to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of included systematic reviews, and the outcome indicators were comprehensively analyzed.ResultsA total of 10 systematic reviews were included. The results of AMSTAR 2 suggested that 6 systematic reviews were of extremely low quality, 3 of low quality, and 1 of high quality. The PRISMA score ranged from 16.5 to 27. The results of the included systematic reviews showed that hyperbaric oxygen therapy might be superior to other interventions in ulcer healing rate and large amputation rate without increasing the risk of adverse events. ConclusionsThe existing systematic reviews/meta-analysis evidence shows that hyperbaric oxygen therapy may have certain curative effect on diabetic foot, however, its methodology and report quality evaluation are insufficient.
The purpose of a scoping review is to help researchers gain a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the current state of development in a field. In this paper, we explained the background and core contents of the scoping review report specification checklist (PRISMA extension for scoping reviews, PRISMA-ScR) and interpreted each item with examples to guide domestic scholars to write scoping reviews and improve their reporting quality.
The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is fundamental to the value of evidence in evidence-based medicine. As the internationally endorsed standard, the PRISMA statement and its extensive suite of extensions are crucial for standardizing reporting and enhancing transparency. However, a comprehensive, systematic understanding of its entire framework and profound challenges remains inadequate in the academic community. This review aims to systematically delineate and deeply analyze the complete PRISMA reporting guideline framework, evaluate its application value, uncover its implementation challenges, and forecast its future development directions. This paper traces PRISMA's evolution from its predecessor, QUOROM, to PRISMA 2020, highlighting key shifts in its core principles. It systematically constructs a multi-dimensional framework for the PRISMA family for the first time, categorizing its extensions by foundational versions, study design/analysis types, reporting process stages, disciplinary domains, and specific areas of focus, complemented by a forward-looking analysis of tools currently under development. The review delves into the deep-seated challenges in PRISMA's implementation, including misconceptions, inconsistent application, cross-disciplinary adaptability, and methodological limitations. It proposes that its future lies in balancing standardization with flexibility, enhancing globalized application, and deeply integrating with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. The PRISMA framework has evolved from a mere reporting checklist into a core methodological architecture that promotes standardization throughout the entire evidence synthesis lifecycle. The continuous optimization and proper application of this framework are of critical theoretical and practical significance for enhancing the overall quality and impact of evidence synthesis research globally.
Living systematic reviews (LSR) represent an evolving methodology for systematic review that is continuously updated to incorporate new evidence in a timely manner, ensuring that healthcare professionals and policymaker shave access to the most last information to make optimal decisions. The global publication of LSR has been a rapid increase. But the quality of reporting remains to be enhanced. In 2024, the PRISMA-LSR working group, in conjunction with the characteristics of LSR to form the reporting standards for living systematic reviews, which plays a significant role in promoting the transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of LSR. It has been published in the BMJ journal. This article interpreted PRISMA-LSR with representative examples, aiming to provide a reference for the standardization of LSR by domestic scholars.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsDatabase including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched from inception to December 2016 to collect SRs/MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting and methodological qualities using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR tool.ResultsTwenty-seven SRs/MAs of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM were included in this overview. The average score of AMSTAR was 7.04. The worst score were the item 1 (26 studies didn't provide an ‘a priori’ design), item 4 (10 studies didn't provide whether the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?), item 10 and item 11 (15 studies didn't assess the likelihood of publication bias and the potential conflicts of interest). The PRISMA score ranged from 17.0 to 24.5. The main problems of reporting were protocol and registration, search, additional analyses and funding.ConclusionThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs/MAs of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes are not high.
Objective
To assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion.
Methods
We searched CNKI database to collect meta-analysis published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion up to 2015. Methodological quality assessment was carried out using AMSTAR tool, and quality assessment was carried out by PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was performed by using SPSS 19.0 software.
Results
A total of 31 meta-analyses were enrolled. Among all the 31 meta-analyses, the first authors came from 19 institutions, and 21 meta-analysis were supported by fundings. All meta-analyses were about the evaluations of acupuncture intervention, involving 10 disease systems (ICD-10) and sub-health. The mean score of the methodological assessment was 7.42±1.13. In addition, the mean score of reporting quality was 18.79±2.04.
Conclusion
The meta-analyses published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion have high quality on methodology as well as reporting. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, the above results are needed to be further assessed by more studies.
