Jian-ping Liu1, Yun Xia. 1. Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing. jianping-l@hotmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To critically assess the quality of literature about systematic review or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals. METHODS: Electronic searches in CNKI, VIP and Wanfang data-base were conducted to retrieve the systematic reviews or meta-analysis reports on TCM, including herbal medicine, needling, acupuncture and moxibustion, as well as integrative medicine, they were identified and extracted according to the 18 items of QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analyses) Statement and relative information. The appraisal was made taking the indexes mainly including objectives, source of data, methods of data extraction, quality assessment of the included studies, measurement data synthesis, etc. RESULTS: Eighty-two systematic reviews were identified, except 6 reviews were excluded for repeatedly published or didn't comply with the enrolled criterion, 76 reviews concerning 51 kinds of diseases were enrolled for appraisal. Among them, 70 reviews evaluated the efficacy of TCM, mainly on Chinese herbs and 9 on acupuncture and moxibustion. In majority of the reviews, randomised controlled trials were included and the data resources were described, but in 26 reviews only the Chinese databases were searched and the description about data extraction and analysis method were too simple; and 70% of reviews assessed the quality of the included studies; none used flow chart to express the process of selection, inclusion and exclusion of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Few reviews or Meta-analysis reports reached the international standard and there is insufficient description of methodology for conducting systematic reviews, so it is hardly to be repeated. The authors suggested that advanced methodological training is necessary for reviewers.
OBJECTIVE: To critically assess the quality of literature about systematic review or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals. METHODS: Electronic searches in CNKI, VIP and Wanfang data-base were conducted to retrieve the systematic reviews or meta-analysis reports on TCM, including herbal medicine, needling, acupuncture and moxibustion, as well as integrative medicine, they were identified and extracted according to the 18 items of QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analyses) Statement and relative information. The appraisal was made taking the indexes mainly including objectives, source of data, methods of data extraction, quality assessment of the included studies, measurement data synthesis, etc. RESULTS: Eighty-two systematic reviews were identified, except 6 reviews were excluded for repeatedly published or didn't comply with the enrolled criterion, 76 reviews concerning 51 kinds of diseases were enrolled for appraisal. Among them, 70 reviews evaluated the efficacy of TCM, mainly on Chinese herbs and 9 on acupuncture and moxibustion. In majority of the reviews, randomised controlled trials were included and the data resources were described, but in 26 reviews only the Chinese databases were searched and the description about data extraction and analysis method were too simple; and 70% of reviews assessed the quality of the included studies; none used flow chart to express the process of selection, inclusion and exclusion of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Few reviews or Meta-analysis reports reached the international standard and there is insufficient description of methodology for conducting systematic reviews, so it is hardly to be repeated. The authors suggested that advanced methodological training is necessary for reviewers.