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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of meta-analysis published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing.MethodsCNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect meta-analysis which published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing from inception to December 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and the reporting quality by AMSTAR scale and PRISMA statement. Statistical analysis was then performed by using SPSS 19.0 software.ResultsA total of 53 meta-analyses were included, which involved 7 disease systems and sub-health status. The mean score of the methodological assessment by AMSTAR was 7.75±1.32, including 9 high-quality papers (17.0%), 41 middle-quality papers (77.4%), and 3 low-quality papers (5.6%). The mean score of the reporting quality assessment by PRISMA was 22.5±3.08, including 39 relatively complete papers (73.6%), 11 papers with certain defects (20.8%), and 3 papers with serious defects (5.6%).ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing deserves further improvement.
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.
Objective To assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions published in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine by PRISMA guidelines, and to analyze its influencing factors. Methods The systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions were searched in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from its inception to 2011. The quality of the included reviews was assessed in accordance with the PRISMA checklist. Based on the degree of conformity with each criterion of PRISMA, the reviews were scored as “1”, “0.5” or “0” orderly. The data were put into Excel, and the Meta-analyst software was used for statistical analysi. Results Among all literature in the volume 11 (95) of the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from 2001 to 2011, a total of 379 studies were included, and the number of publication showed a yearly rising trend. The PRISMA scale score ranged from 8.5 to 26 (X±SD) was 19.97±3.15. Among all studies, 25 (6.60%) scored 21-27 points, which were regarded as the complete reporting; 226 (59.63%) scored 15-21 points, regarded as relatively complete reporting; and 128 (33.77%) scored less than 15 points, regarded as serious lack of information. The results of stratified analysis showed that, both the issue of PRISMA and fund support could improve the reporting quality, with a significant difference (Plt;0.05); and authors more than 3, authors from universities, and authors from more than 2 institutions could improve the reporting quality, but without a significant difference (Pgt;0.05). Conclusion The overall reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to interventions published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine is poor, and it is influenced by the factors of protocol and registration, risk of bias across studies, other analyses, and fund support, which have to be taken seriously. The reasonable utilization of the PRISMA checklist will improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses.
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 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.