Objective To investigate the health technology assessment reports, analyze publication characteristics and report quality, and explore hot topics in health technology assessment. Methods Web of Science and CNKI databases were searched to collect complete health technology assessment reports from inception to January 2023. SPSS 26.0 software was used to analyze the publication journals, countries, number of authors, assessment types and assessment contents of the assessment reports. The report quality was assessed based on International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) report criteria (2007 edition). VOSviewer 1.6.11 was used to analyze keywords clustering. Results A total of 216 papers were included, with 158 published by Chinese authors, and a rapid growth trend in the number of reports over past four years. The rate of reports on health technology social adaptability assessment was only 17.13%. Among the Chinese reports, 25 were general health technology assessments, 35 were rapid assessments, and 3 were mini assessments. Among the English reports, 4 were rapid assessments, and 54 were regular healthcare technology assessments. For the 14 items in the INAHTA reporting criteria, the reporting rates were high for the brief summary (98.61%), problem description (94.91%), and results discussion entries (97.69%). However, the reporting rates were low for criteria such as personnel responsibilities, conflict of interest statements, and peer review statements, at 31.94%, 19.44%, and 3.24% respectively. English literature generally exhibited higher report quality. Conclusion In recent years, the volume of health technology assessment reports in China has been increasing, with developments in assessment types and application fields. However, there are also problems with standardization of reporting.
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.
Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in seven military medical journals. Methods Seven journals in 2007, including Medical Journal of Chinese People’s Liberation Army, Journal of South Medical University, Journal of Second Military Medical University, Journal of Third Military Medical University, Journal of Fourth Military Medical University, Bulletin of the Academy of Military of Medical Sciences and Academic Journal of PLA Postgraduate Medical School, were handsearched. We identified RCTs labeled “random” and assessed the quality of these reports using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement. Results We identified 99 RCTs, but found an incorrect randomized method was used in 6 RCTs. According to the items in the CONSORT statement in 93 RCTs, 62 (66.7%) RCTs described baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in each group. Sixteen (17.2%) RCTs mentioned the method of random sequence generation, with 5 (5.4%) using a computer allocation. Only 1 RCT had adequate allocation concealment. Only 9 (9.7%) RCTs used blinding, with 2 mentioning blinding, 1 using single blinding and 6 described as double-blind (2 were correct). Zero (0%) reported the sample size calculation and 1 RCT reported the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Conclusion The reporting quality of RCTs in seven journals is poor. The CONSORT statement should be used to standardize the reporting of RCTs.
Adherence to reporting guidelines contributes to report methodology and outcomes of research distinctly and transparently. There are some checklists with specific study types related to surgery on the EQUATOR Network’s website. However, the IDEAL framework focuses on stepwise evaluation of surgical innovation through all stages with some key elements, which those existing guidelines may not mention. This likely results in the inaccuracy in reporting in studies attempting to follow the IDEAL recommendations and suggests a pressing need for IDEAL reporting guidelines. Considering these limitations, the IDEAL developed the IDEAL reporting guidelines between October 2018 and May 2019. The paper aimed to provide interpretation of IDEAL reporting guideline, and promote its understanding and use among Chinese researchers.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals in 2017.MethodsCBM, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were searched for articles published in 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT).ResultsOne hundred and seven clinical practice guidelines were included and a total reporting rate of 34.8%±0.1% in RIGHT. Among the seven domains of RIGHT, field on basic information had the highest reporting rate (56.8%) and fields on review and quality assurance had the lowest reporting rate (9.3%).The average reporting rate of RIGHT items of Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) articles was lower than non-CSCD [MD=?0.73, 95%CI (?0.78, ?0.68)] articles. The average reporting rates of RIGHT items differed between Chinese Medical Association (CMA) journal articles and non-CMA journal articles [MD=2.30, 95%CI (2.26, 2.34)]. The average reporting rates of RIGHT items was lower in guidelines established by associations or institutes [MD=?3.78, 95%CI (?3.83, ?3.73)], and was higher reported in Chinese medicine guidelines [MD=21.94, 95%CI (21.91, 21.97)].ConclusionsThe reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in journals of mainland China in 2017 is low in general, especially in fields such as review and quality assurance, funding and declaration and management of interests and other information. To improve this phenomena, it is suggested that guideline developers report the guidelines rigorously with international standard.
An intervention with clinical application must be effective and safe, therefore, when evaluating interventions, the benefit-harm ratio should be considered, and only those interventions with more benefits than harms have application value. To evaluate the benefits and harms of an intervention evidence of both benefits and harms should be reported in clinical trials. To promote better reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials, the CONSORT group had added an entry on harms in the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement, and then in 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated, the reporting of harms is still inadequate. The CONSORT group has updated《Better reporting of harms in randomized trial: an extension of the CCONSORT statement.》, published《CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials》. This article presents and explains the Harms 2022, with the aim of helping researchers better understand and use the statement, with a view to improving the reporting quality of harms in clinical trials.
Objective While reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADR) and adverse drug events (AE) following Chinese medicine injection (CMI) is becoming more common, the reporting quality is of concern. Methods A checklist about the reporting quality of ADR/AE was set up, and the ADR/AE reporting of Herba Houttuyniae injection was chosen as an example. Electronic databases Chinese Journal Net (CJN) (1994-2009) and Chinese Science and Technological Journal Net (VIP) (1989-2009) were searched for target literature. Results Based on our search strategy, 210 articles were included, with 175 articles reporting single or several cases of ADR/AE following Herba Houttuyniae injection (type I report). There were 7 reports from regional or national ADR monitoring centers (type II report), and 28 summary reports from a single hospital or medical center (type III report). All 210 papers mentioned ‘adverse effect,’ ‘safety’ or related meaning words in their titles, but 199 articles did not have abstract. Patient demographic characteristics were not fully reported in these articles. In type I articles, only 97 cases (43.11%) mentioned whether patients had or did not have a history of allergies, while 128 cases (56.89%) in Type II papers and Fourteen (50%) type III papers, did not mention allergic history of patients. Only three articles (3/210, 1.43%), all of them type I, mentioned the syndrome type in Chinese medicine. None of the papers gave clear indications of the type and grade of ADR/AE of patients. Most papers did not report details of the CMI procedure, such as the drug company, product serial number, or the drug’s validity period. Data about the occurrence time and management of ADR/AE was also inadequately reported. Conclusion and recommendations The current reporting format of ADR/AE in clinical CMIs is not standardized. Much fundamental information of ADR/AE following CMI is therefore missing. A standard reporting format for ADR should be developed, and should include the following: 1) a title mentioning adverse effects and safety; 2) a structured abstract including adequate information about the patient and the disease treated, the drug used, the specific ADR/AE, physician response to the ADR/AE, and result of management; 3) demographic characteristic of the patients (gender, age, etc.); 4) clinical characteristics of patients (disease, syndrome, etc); 5) allergic history of patients; 6) diagnosis and syndrome based on Chinese medicine theory; 7) detailed information about the Chinese materia medica intervention (the manufacturer of the drug, series number, valid dates, dosage, route of administration, menstruum, dripping speed, etc.); 8) concomitant drug use; 9) time and symptoms of ADR/AE; 10) type and grading of ADR/AE; 11) physiological systems affected by ADR/AE; 12) specific treatment and prognosis for ADR/AE; 13) evidence of the cause and effect of ADR/AE; 14) any other possibility of ADR/AE. Also, a ADR/AE registration system should be established.
Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs can test the effectiveness of interventions and the outcomes of implementation strategies concurrently and accelerate the transformation of research results into routine practice. This paper introduced three types of effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs and corresponding reporting guidelines, including standards for reporting implementation studies, cluster randomized design and CONSORT 2010, stepped-wedge cluster randomized design and extended version CONSORT 2018, qualitative research and COREQ reporting guideline, and provide references for domestic researchers to produce research reports on effectiveness-implementation hybrid design.
The selection of outcome measurement instruments (OMI) is a prerequisite for accurately collecting health outcome data. Conducting a systematic review of OMI can provide an important reference for researchers and practitioners to select the most appropriate OMI. In order to improve the reporting quality of the systematic review of OMI, foreign researchers published the PRISMA-COSMIN reporting guideline in the J Clin Epidemiol in June 2024. This article introduces the research team, development process, and items of the reporting guideline, and analyzes the items with examples. We hope our attempt could help domestic researchers improve the overall quality of OMI systematic reviews.
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.
