Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in "evidence-based" Chinese journals

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Li, Jin long ^a   Ge, Long ^a   Ma, Ji Chun ^a   Zeng, Qiao ling ^a   Yao, Lu ^a   An, Ni ^a   Ding, Jie xian ^a   Gan, Yu Hong ^a   Tian, Jin Hui ^a  

^a LANZHOU UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Chinese journal; Evidence based; Meta analyses; Quality of reporting; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASM; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); CHINA; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LITERATURE; STANDARD;

CHINA; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84907271276     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-58     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1995, 274:1800-1804. 10.1001/jama.1995.03530220066035, 7500513.
2. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:e1-e34.
3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surq 2010, 8(5):336-341.
4. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Rev Esp Salud Publica 2000, 74(2):107-118.
5. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology. Clin Epidemiol 1996, 49(2):235-243.
6. Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ 2000, 322:98-101.
7. Willis BH, Quigley M. The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review. J BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:163.
8. Ma B, Guo J, Qi G, Li H, Peng J, Zhang Y, Ding Y, Yang K. Quality and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine interventions published in Chinese journals. PLoS One 2011, 6(5):e20185. 10.1371/journal.pone.0020185, 3102106, 21633698.
9. Shen J, Yao L, Li Y, Clarke M, Gan Q, Li Y, Fan Y, Gou Y, Wang L. Visualization Studies on Evidence-Based Medicine Domain Knowledge (Series 3): visualization for dissemination of evidence-based medicine information. Chin J Evid-based Med 2011, 11(8):858-867.
10. Dong JW. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 2008, Beijing: People's Health Publishing House.
11. Wang J, Liu Q, Wong CG, Wang Y, Li L, Lei X, Zhang F. Quality assessment for Chinese systematic reviews/meta-analyses in public health. Chin J Evid-based Med 2010, 12:1367-1374.
12. An N, Xu JF, Ge L, Liang L, Shi XT, Zhou WW, Liu YC, Ma JC, Tian JH. Report quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of interventions published in Chinese journal of evidence-based pediatrics. Chin J Evid Bases Pediatr 2013, 8(2):87-92.