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.
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 provide references for scientific selection of different tools/guidelines by comprehensively collecting international and national tools/guidelines for assessing reporting quality and methodological quality of animal experiments, comparing them in development foundation, application scope, and aims.
MethodsPubMed, EMbase, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched up to July 2014, to collect tools/guidelines for reporting quality and methodological quality of primary animal experiments. We extracted data from included guidelines/tools, including the number of items, development foundation, disease models, application scope, and assessment focus. Then descriptive analysis was conducted.
ResultsA total of 32 studies were finally included, of which, 6 were for reporting quality and 26 for methodological quality. The item number of the included tools/guidelines ranged from 2 to 54. Seven tools/guidelines applied score system to assess methodological quality. Fifteen tools/guidelines were designed for specific disease models. Nineteen tools/guidelines were suitable for assessing preclinical drug studies, and 4 were designed to assess environmental toxicology research.
ConclusionAlthough many tools for assessing methodological quality of animal experiments have been published so far, SYRCLE's risk of bias tool is the only one that is used to assess internal validity of animal experiments at present. Besides, although the ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC are not official mandatory reporting criteria at present, they are acknowledged by many researchers as efficient reference checklists and writing guidelines for writing and publishing animal experiments. We recommend the application of SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC, in order to efficiently improve research design, implementation, reporting, differentiation, and evaluation of animal experiments, promote the development of animal experiments, and to promote full application and translation of scientific achievements.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting quality of domestic and foreign randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on acupuncture for dry eye based on Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Expand Statement 2010 (CONSORT 2010) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).MethodsCNKI, VIP, CBM, WanFang Data, PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched to collect RCTs of acupuncture for dry eye at home and abroad from inception to February 2020. The reporting quality of the selected literature was evaluated with the items in the CONSORT and STRICTA, respectively.ResultsA total of 69 Chinese literatures and 8 English literatures were included. The average reporting rate of all items of CONSORT in Chinese and English literatures was 41.4% and 56.4%, respectively. The missing items of Chinese literature report primarily focused on the sections of “methodology”, “results”, and “other information”. The Chinese and English literature report rate was relatively close in terms of the literature report rate of STRICTA, and both were relatively complete in the description of acupuncture intervention.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture treatment for dry eye in China and abroad is generally low. Further improving the relevant reporting quality according to the CONSORT statement 2010 and STRICTA 2010 is urgent.
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.
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.
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 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.
ObjectivesTo analyze the current methodological and reporting quality of both domestic and overseas clinical practice guidelines on acupuncture, and to provide reference for the development of high quality acupuncture clinical practice guidelines.MethodsGIN, NICE, AHRQ, PubMed, EMbase, AMED, CINAHL, WanFang Data, CNKI, VIP and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect domestic and overseas clinical practice guidelines on acupuncture from inception to September, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the methodological and reporting quality by using AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT tools.ResultsA total of 23 acupuncture clinical practice guidelines were included, in which three were developed by foreign institutions, and the remaining 20 guidelines were jointly developed by WHO Western Pacific Region and China Institute of Acupuncture and Moxibustion. Three foreign and two domestic guidelines were selected for evaluation. The AGREE Ⅱ evaluation showed that the domestic guidelines have higher scores in terms of " scope and purpose”, " stakeholder involvement”, " rigor of development”, " applicability” and " clarity of presentation”, while only " editorial independence” is lower. The overall recommendation is stronger than the foreign guidelines. The RIGHT evaluation showed that for three foreign guidelines, the " reported” items accounted for 52.38%, " unreported” items accounted for 38.09%, " partly reported” items accounted for 6.66%%; however, for domestic guidelines, the " reported” accounted for 45.71%, " unreported” items accounted for 40%, and " partly reported” items accounted for 14.28% respectively. Overall, the difference is not significant (SD<10%). Due to the specificity of acupuncture interventions, the use of AGREEⅡ and RIGHT to evaluate acupuncture clinical practice guidelines still had barriers to some extend on its applicability.ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of acupuncture clinical practice guidelines are relatively low. It is urgent to further improve the methodological level and reporting standards of the guidelines, and to develop evaluation tools for the acupuncture field guidelines.
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.
