Dan Hu1, De-ying Kang, Yu-xia Wu. 1. Department of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews or Meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine published in China, and to validate the applicability of OQAQ (Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire) and AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) in traditional Chinese medicine (Chinese Medical). METHODS: Comprehensive literature retrieve was performed in CBM, CNKI, VIP as well as hand searching in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The retrieve was started from January 1, 1999 and terminated by December 2008. The methodological quality of traditional Chinese medicine correlated systematic reviews was evaluated using OQAQ and AMSTAR simultaneously. RESULTS: A total of 115 systematic reviews involved 17 types of diseases, of which, the cardio-/cerebrovascular diseases was dominant (36 papers, 31.30%). The mean OQAQ score was 2.50 (95% CI: 2.22, 2.76). No significant correlation was found in OQAQ score with publication year (P = 0.35) and different disease types (P = 0.28). High consistency was observed in evaluations of systematic reviews by using OQAQ and AMSTAR (both Kappa values > 0.75). Compared with the OQAQ, AMSTAR incorporated 3 additional items: the topics, publication bias, and conflict of interest, etc. Although 98.26% of systematic reviews proposed protocols in prior, 53.04% failed to analyze the publication bias. Besides, 57.39% neglected to address the potential conflict of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Poor methodological quality in systematic reviews of Chinese Medical published in China needs to be improved and emphasized. It is necessary to integrate the special characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine itself when choosing topics of systematic reviews. It is essential to establish quality assessment tools targeting systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews or Meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine published in China, and to validate the applicability of OQAQ (Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire) and AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) in traditional Chinese medicine (Chinese Medical). METHODS: Comprehensive literature retrieve was performed in CBM, CNKI, VIP as well as hand searching in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The retrieve was started from January 1, 1999 and terminated by December 2008. The methodological quality of traditional Chinese medicine correlated systematic reviews was evaluated using OQAQ and AMSTAR simultaneously. RESULTS: A total of 115 systematic reviews involved 17 types of diseases, of which, the cardio-/cerebrovascular diseases was dominant (36 papers, 31.30%). The mean OQAQ score was 2.50 (95% CI: 2.22, 2.76). No significant correlation was found in OQAQ score with publication year (P = 0.35) and different disease types (P = 0.28). High consistency was observed in evaluations of systematic reviews by using OQAQ and AMSTAR (both Kappa values > 0.75). Compared with the OQAQ, AMSTAR incorporated 3 additional items: the topics, publication bias, and conflict of interest, etc. Although 98.26% of systematic reviews proposed protocols in prior, 53.04% failed to analyze the publication bias. Besides, 57.39% neglected to address the potential conflict of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Poor methodological quality in systematic reviews of Chinese Medical published in China needs to be improved and emphasized. It is necessary to integrate the special characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine itself when choosing topics of systematic reviews. It is essential to establish quality assessment tools targeting systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine.