Digital health technology implementation has grown rapidly in recent years. To standardize the quality of digital health implementation research and increase the transparency and integrity of reporting, Perrin published iCHECK-DH: guidelines and checklist for the reporting on digital health implementations in 2023. This article interprets the contents of the list with a view to improving the reporting quality of digital implementation studies to develop more effective digital health interventions and achieve better health outcomes.
Objective To summarize and analyze the working experience of hospital performance evaluation and reporting system in America, so as to provide decision support to China on such work as establishing objective, scientific and effective hospital performance evaluation system, strengthening government’s supervision to health service, and promoting hospitals’ sound development.Methods American official websites and databases were searched to include relative policies, reports and documents on hospitals’ performance evaluation. Results Typical hospital performance evaluation and reporting system in America included National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR), Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (CAHPS), Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), Leapfrog Group Evaluation System and Thomson Reuters 100 Top Hospitals. Conclusion The enlightenments of American performance performance evaluation systems to China include: a) more attention should be paid to performance evaluation; b) combined evaluation models and results application methods should be considered; c) comparatively scientific evaluation methods and comprehensive evaluation contents should be established.
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.
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.
The utilisation of statistical analysis plan (SAP) has the potential to enhance the reliability, transparency, and impartiality of statistical analysis procedures in the context of clinical studies. These plans are primarily designed for late phase clinical studies, namely phase Ⅱ and phase Ⅲ randomised controlled trials. The extended SAP reporting guidelines for early phase clinical studies, i.e., phase Ⅰ clinical studies and phase Ⅱ non-randomised controlled trials, have been expanded from the original reporting guidelines in six key areas: trial purpose, design, Bayesian statistics, data simulation, sample size, and the application of ICH E9 (R1). The expanded reporting guidelines facilitate the standardisation of SAP for early phase clinical trials, enhance the transparency and reproducibility of early phase clinical studies, and thereby improve the quality of early phase clinical studies. This, in turn, plays a pivotal role in later phase clinical studies.
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 PRISMA aims to enhance the transparency and reporting quality of systematic reviews. PRISMA 2020 is an update version of PRISMA 2009, which was published in BMJ in March, 2021. This article compared the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA 2009, interpreted PRISMA 2020 with representative examples, aiming to help Chinese scholars better understand and apply this reporting guideline, thus to improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews.
ObjectiveTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/Meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of transurethral procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
MethodWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 12, 2014), Sciverse, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to December 2014 to collect SRs/MAs of transurethral procedure about BPH. Two reviewers independently screened literature and assessed the methodological and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs by AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists.
ResultsA total of 33 SRs/MAs were included. The results of qualitative analysis showed that:the main methodological weakness of included SRs/MAs included the lack of protocol, disappropriate conclusion formulation, the lack of publication bias assessment, and the lack of stating the conflict of interest. The average score of AMSTAR scale was 6.27±2.14. There were 11 items in PRISMA checklist with coincidence rate over 80%, 8 items between 50% to 80%, and 8 items less than 50%.
ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of SR/MA of transurethral procedure for BHP is low, and that may decrease the reliability and value of results from SRs/MAs in the field. Future SRs/MAs should strictly follow the related reporting guidelines in order to improve the methodological and reporting quality, so as to provide more reliable evidence for clinical decision.
Evidence mapping is a new type of comprehensive evidence research method that systematically collects, evaluates, and synthesizes existing evidence to clarify research status and gaps, thereby promoting scientific research and decision-making. After nearly 20 years of development, the methodology of evidence mapping has been continuously improved, and has gained wide attention and recognition from the international community. China has paid much attention to evidence mapping at an early stage, but there are relatively few theoretical and practical researches, and the concept definition is inconsistent. This paper introduces the methodology of evidence mapping production and reporting for researchers to use for reference, with a view to further promoting the research and development of evidence mapping in China.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of surgical meta-analyses published in English in 2014.MethodsAll meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in 2014 were selected from PubMed and EMbase. The characteristics of these meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological quality were assessed by the PRISMA and AMSTAR, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsA total of 197 meta-analyses covering 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR score (by items) were 22.2±2.4 and 7.8±1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with a R2 of 0.754. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors who had previously published meta-analysis was significantly higher in reporting and methodological quality than those who had not (P<0.001). Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these reporting (P<0.001) and methodological (P<0.001) quality between studies published in Q1 ranked journals and (Q2+Q3) ranked jounals. On multivariate analyses, region of origin (non-Asiavs. Asia), publishing experience of first authors (ever vs. never), rank of publishing journals (Q1 vs. Q2+Q3), and preregistration (presence vs. absence) were associated with better reporting and methodologic quality, independently.ConclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of current surgical meta-analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors' experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration may be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analysis, which deserves more attention from future meta-analysis reviewers.
