Jinhui Tian1, Jun Zhang2, Long Ge1, Kehu Yang3, Fujian Song4. 1. Evidence-based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu, 730000, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence-based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu, 730000, China. 2. School of Nursing, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, 35 East Dingxi Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu, 730000, China. 3. Evidence-based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu, 730000, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence-based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu, 730000, China. Electronic address: yangkh@lzu.edu.cn. 4. Department of Population Health and Primary Care, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. Electronic address: Fujian.song@uea.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China and those from the United States (USA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: From systematic reviews of randomized trials published in 2014 in English, we randomly selected 100 from China and 100 from the USA. The methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, and reporting quality assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) tool. RESULTS: Compared with systematic reviews from the USA, those from China were more likely to be a meta-analysis, published in low-impact journals, and a non-Cochrane review. The mean summary Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews score was 6.7 (95% confidence interval: 6.5, 7.0) for reviews from China and 6.6 (6.1, 7.1) for reviews from the USA, and the mean summary Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses score was 21.2 (20.7, 21.6) for reviews from China and 20.6 (19.9, 21.3) for reviews from the USA. The differences in summary quality scores between China and the USA were statistically nonsignificant after adjusting for multiple review factors. CONCLUSION: The overall methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China are similar to those from the USA, although the quality of systematic reviews from both countries could be further improved.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China and those from the United States (USA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: From systematic reviews of randomized trials published in 2014 in English, we randomly selected 100 from China and 100 from the USA. The methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, and reporting quality assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) tool. RESULTS: Compared with systematic reviews from the USA, those from China were more likely to be a meta-analysis, published in low-impact journals, and a non-Cochrane review. The mean summary Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews score was 6.7 (95% confidence interval: 6.5, 7.0) for reviews from China and 6.6 (6.1, 7.1) for reviews from the USA, and the mean summary Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses score was 21.2 (20.7, 21.6) for reviews from China and 20.6 (19.9, 21.3) for reviews from the USA. The differences in summary quality scores between China and the USA were statistically nonsignificant after adjusting for multiple review factors. CONCLUSION: The overall methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China are similar to those from the USA, although the quality of systematic reviews from both countries could be further improved.
Authors: Shu Yang; Peihua Cao; Peipei Du; Ziting Wu; Zian Zhuang; Lin Yang; Xuan Yu; Qi Zhou; Xixi Feng; Xiaohui Wang; Weiguo Li; Enmei Liu; Ju Chen; Yaolong Chen; Daihai He Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2020-02