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.
Objective
To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia.
Methods
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched by computer, and the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of corticosteroid hormone as an auxiliary means for the treatment of severe pneumonia which were published from establishment of the databases to October 25th, 2018 were searched. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to evaluate the quality of literature reports.
Results
A total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, all of which were non-Cochrane systematic reviews. In terms of methodological quality assessed by AMSTAR-2, there was no plan in all studies; only one study explained the reasons for inclusion in the study type; eight studies did not describe the dose and follow-up time of the intervention/control measures in detail; three studies did not indicate the evaluation tools and did not describe the risk bias; six studies did not explicitly examine publication bias. In terms of reporting quality assessed by PRISMA, all studies had no pre-registered study protocol or registration number; thirteen studies did not describe the specific amount of articles retrieved from each database; three studies did not present their retrieval strategies or excluded reasons in detail; no funding sources were identified in included studies; eight studies reported both whether the study was funded and whether there was a conflict of interest.
Conclusions
At present, there are many systematic review/meta-analysis studies on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia, and the overall quality of the study has been gradually improved. However, the common problems in the study are relatively prominent. The follow-up period and dose of intervention in the study of severe pneumonia are different, so the baseline is difficult to be unified. Suggestions: strengthening the training of researchers, standardize the research process, and report articles in strict accordance with the PRISMA statement; subgroup analysis being conducted according to the dose and duration of the hormone.
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.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 and to compare the reporting quality with that from 2004 to 2008. MethodsRCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals were collected through a computerized search of the CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases and manual searches of paper journals, all with a search timeframe from 2016 to 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement and two extensions (CONSORT extension for abstracts and CONSORT harms extension) were used to evaluate the RCTs. The criteria for reporting quality were the evaluation score, reporting proportion, and compliance proportion. The reporting quality of RCTs in the past 5 years was compared by year group. In addition, the RCT reporting quality from 2004 to 2008 was compared with that from 2016 to 2020. ResultsIn total, 226 RCTs were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the total evaluation score or abstract score from 2016 to 2020 (F=0.54, P=0.71; H=1.49, P=0.83). However, there were statistically significant differences in the harm scores from 2016 to 2020 (H=10.78, P=0.03). Further analysis of the items revealed statistically significant differences in the reporting proportion of items 16 and 19 (Fisher’s=8.61, P=0.04; χ2=11.63, P=0.02) and no significant differences in the other items (P>0.05). The reporting proportion of defined primary and secondary outcome indicators, allocation concealment, randomization implementation, outcomes and estimation, generalization, trial registration, and flow chart was <10% in each year. There was a statistically significant difference in the compliance proportion of RCT reporting quality from 2016 to 2020 versus 2004 to 2008 (39.54%±8.92% vs. 34.76%±9.16%, t=6.60, P<0.001). ConclusionThe reporting quality of RCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 is better than that from 2004 to 2008. However, the reporting quality of RCTs within the latter 5 years still have reporting deficiencies in important items, and many aspects still are needed to be improved and enhanced.
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.
Objective To assess the reporting quality of noninferiority and equivalence randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Methods The noninferiority and equivalence RCTs related to TCM were searched, and the quality of the included RCTs was identified in accordance with the extended version of CONSORT statement which refers to the reporting standard of noninferiority and equivalence RCTs. Results A total of 13 noninferiority and equivalence RCTs were included. Except for the common questions of RCTs in reporting quality, some contents related to noninferiority and equivalence trials in reporting were not enough: a) The title of RCTs did not reflect the most important content of the literature; b) The introduction of background was quite simple. The rationale about noninferiority and equivalence trials, and the effectiveness of positive control were not clearly defined; c) All literatures did not indicate whether the subjects, interventions and outcomes in the noninferiority and equivalence trials were identical or similar to those in previous trials of defining the effectiveness of control treatment; d) Most literatures did not define the critical value of noninferiority and equivalence, and did not estimate the sample size; e) Only half of literature described the statistical methods of noninferiority test and equivalence test; and f) Some literature had mistakes in noninferiority and equivalence conclusion. Conclusion The researchers still need deeper understanding of the theoretical basis of noninferiority and equivalence trials. The reference to the extended version of CONSORT statement, which refers to the reporting standard of noninferiority and equivalence RCTs, is helpful for researchers to identify the key points of the design, performance and reporting of the noninferiority and equivalence RCTs, to lay stress on the related contents of noninferiority and equivalence trial reporting, and to radically improve the reporting quality of such clinical trials.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting quality of individual/focus group interviews published in nursing journals included in the Chinese science citation database (CSCD).MethodsCSCD database was electronically searched to collect qualitative studies published in nursing journals included in CSCD from January 2016 to December 2018. Two researchers independently screened literatures, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies by COREQ guidelines, SPSS 25.0 software was then used for statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 223 qualitative researches were included. The results of COREQ evaluation showed that full report rate of 43.8% (14/32) studies were less than 50%, 78.6% (11/14) were less than 20%, and the full report rate of item 4 was even 0%. There were no significant differences between different total cites and the availability of funding in COREQ guidelines.ConclusionThe reporting quality of the qualitative researches published in the four nursing journals included in the CSCD requires further improvement. Therefore, we suggest that domestic nursing journals should introduce COREQ guidelines in contribution and strictly implement it in editorial review and peer review.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on acupuncture for neck disorder.
MethodsThree databases including CENTRAL (Issue 3, 2010), MEDLINE and EMbase from January 2006 to December 2010 were searched electronically, and only English articles were included. A manual search for further references was conducted from those references initially identified. We identified 14 RCTs that used acupuncture as an intervention and assessed the quality of these reports against the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).
ResultsFinally 14 RCTs were included. Regarding the CONSORT statement, 9 (64.3%) RCTs described the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in each group. Only 7 (50.0%) studies mentioned how the random sequence was generated. Only 6 (42.9%) RCTs had adequate allocation concealment, with 4 RCTs which described the concealment in detail. Only 8 (57.1%) RCTs used blinding, including 2 described as double-blind. Only two (14.3%) RCTs reported how the sample size was calculated. Corresponding to the items in STRICTA, 5 (35.7%) RCTs reported the numbers of needles inserted. The others just indicated the acu-points. The needle type, model and the thickness of needles were reported in 12 (85.7%) RCTs, but only 4 (28.6%) mentioned the depths of insertion. There were only 4 RCTs (28.6%) that reported the background of the acupuncture practitioners and the duration of their training.
ConclusionThe RCTs of acupuncture for neck disorder meeting the criteria for the CONSORT statement and STRICTA still have room for improvement. Promoting the use of the CONSORT statement and STRICTA should help to improve the reporting quality of acupuncture related research, and hence to elucidate the scientific understanding of acupuncture.
ObjectivesTo assess the characteristics, methodological and reporting qualities of systematic reviews on community interventions in China.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM databases were searched for studies of community interventions from inception to August 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological and reporting quality by AMSTAR tool and PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was performed by SPSS 20.0 software.ResultsA total of 18 systematic reviews of community interventions were included. The average AMSTAR score was 4.67±1.68, and all studies did not provide the list of included and excluded studies or a statement on conflict of interests. The average PRISMA score was 16.42±3.65, and over 50.0% of the included systematic reviews did not perform protocol and registration, search, additional analyses, risk of bias of included studies and funding.ConclusionsThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses of community interventions in China is insufficient. The combination of results, quality of individual research and the evaluation of publication bias should be paid more attention to improve methodological quality. The reporting of meta-analyses of community interventions in China should follow the PRISMA checklist.
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.
