The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 85, Issue , 2017, Pages 50-58

  Tian, Jinhui ^a   Zhang, Jun ^b   Ge, Long ^a   Yang, Kehu ^a   Song, Fujian ^c  

^a LANZHOU UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b GANSU UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE MEDICINE   (China)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence based medicine; Methodological quality; Reporting quality; Risk of bias; Systematic review; Validity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHINA; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; HUMAN; MANDATORY REPORTING; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); UNITED STATES; EPIDEMIOLOGY; LITERATURE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CHINA; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85012877269     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Cook, D.J., Mulrow, C.D., Haynes, R.B., Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 126 (1997), 376–380.
2. Murad, M.H., Montori, V.M., Ioannidis, J.P., Jaeschke, R., Devereaux, P.J., Prasad, K., et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA 312 (2014), 171–179.
3. Chalmers, I., Hedges, L.V., Cooper, H., A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof 25:1 (2002), 12–37.
4. Summerskill, W., Cochrane collaboration and the evolution of evidence. Lancet, 366, 2005, 1760.
5. Zhang, M., Li, Y., Cochrane collaboration in China 1996-2013. J Evid Based Med 7 (2014), 22–25.
6. Mallett, S., Clarke, M., How many Cochrane reviews are needed to cover existing evidence on the effects of health care interventions?. ACP J Club, 139(1), 2003, A11.
7. Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?. PLoS Med, 7(9), 2010, e1000326.
8. Fuhr, U., Hellmich, M., Channeling the flood of meta-analyses. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 71 (2015), 645–647.
9. Tebala, G.D., What is the future of biomedical research?. Med Hypotheses 85:4 (2015), 488–490.
10. Ioannidis JP. Can too many systematic reviews and meta-analyses do harm? Plenary II: Information overload: are we part of the problem or part of the solution?. The 24th Cochrane Colloquium. Vienna, 2015.
11. Riaz, I.B., Khan, M.S., Riaz, H., Goldberg, R.J., Disorganized systematic reviews and meta-analyses: time to systematize the conduct and publication of these study overviews?. Am J Med 129 (2016), 339.e11–339.e18.
12. Ioannidis, J.P., Chang, C.Q., Lam, T.K., Schully, S.D., Khoury, M.J., The geometric increase in meta-analyses from China in the genomic era. PLoS One, 8(6), 2013, e65602.
13. Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A.C., et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med, 13(5), 2016, e1002028.
14. Jin, Y.H., Ma, E.T., Gao, W.J., Hua, W., Dou, H.Y., Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field in China. Int J Nurs Pract 20 (2014), 70–78.
15. Li, J.L., Ge, L., Ma, J.C., Zeng, Q.L., Yao, L., An, N., et al. Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals. Syst Rev, 3, 2014, 58.
16. Ma, B., Guo, J., Qi, G., Li, H., Peng, J., Zhang, Y., et al. Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine interventions published in Chinese journals. PLoS One, 6(5), 2011, e20185.
17. Ma, B., Qi, G.Q., Lin, X.T., Wang, T., Chen, Z.M., Yang, K.H., Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions published in Chinese journals. J Altern Complement Med 18 (2012), 813–817.
18. Yao, L., Sun, R., Chen, Y.L., Wang, Q., Wei, D., Wang, X., et al. The quality of evidence in Chinese meta-analyses needs to be improved. J Clin Epidemiol 74 (2016), 73–79.
19. Shea, B.J., Grimshaw, J.M., Wells, G.A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 7, 2007, 10.
20. Shea, B.J., Hamel, C., Wells, G.A., Bouter, L.M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 1013–1020.
21. Pieper, D., Buechter, R.B., Li, L., Prediger, B., Eikermann, M., Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol 68 (2015), 574–583.
22. Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A.C., Sampson, M., Altman, D.G., Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med, 4(3), 2007, e78.
23. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), e1–e34.
24. Petticrew, M., Wilson, P., Wright, K., Song, F., Quality of Cochrane reviews. Quality of Cochrane reviews is better than that of non-Cochrane reviews. BMJ, 324, 2002, 545.
25. Vickers, A., Goyal, N., Harland, R., Rees, R., Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials 19 (1998), 159–166.
26. Zhang, D., Freemantle, N., Cheng, K.K., Are randomized trials conducted in China or India biased? A comparative empirical analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 64 (2011), 90–95.
27. Fan, H., Song, F., An assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for non-communicable diseases (NCDs): more and higher quality research is required in less developed countries. Sci Rep, 5, 2015, 13221.
28. Chalmers, I., Bracken, M.B., Djulbegovic, B., Garattini, S., Grant, J., Gülmezoglu, A.M., et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383 (2014), 156–165.
29. Bolland, M.J., Grey, A., A case study of discordant overlapping meta-analyses: vitamin d supplements and fracture. PLoS One, 9(12), 2014, e115934.
30. Helfer, B., Prosser, A., Samara, M.T., Geddes, J.R., Cipriani, A., Davis, J.M., et al. Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination. BMC Med, 13, 2015, 82.
31. D'Agostino, R.B. Jr., Editorial commentary: meta-analyses are on the rise, but are we learning more?. Arthroscopy 32 (2016), 538–539.