Cargando…

The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China

BACKGROUND: The quality of reporting in systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of diagnostic tests published by authors in China has not been evaluated. The aims of present study are to evaluate the quality of reporting in diagnostic SRs/MAs using the PRISMA statement and determine the changes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ge, Long, Wang, Jian-cheng, Li, Jin-long, Liang, Li, An, Ni, Shi, Xin-tong, Liu, Yin-chun, Tian, Jin-hui
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897563/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24465781
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085908
_version_ 1782300255920848896
author Ge, Long
Wang, Jian-cheng
Li, Jin-long
Liang, Li
An, Ni
Shi, Xin-tong
Liu, Yin-chun
Tian, Jin-hui
author_facet Ge, Long
Wang, Jian-cheng
Li, Jin-long
Liang, Li
An, Ni
Shi, Xin-tong
Liu, Yin-chun
Tian, Jin-hui
author_sort Ge, Long
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The quality of reporting in systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of diagnostic tests published by authors in China has not been evaluated. The aims of present study are to evaluate the quality of reporting in diagnostic SRs/MAs using the PRISMA statement and determine the changes in the quality of reporting over time. METHODS: According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we searched five databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of knowledge, to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic tests. The searches were conducted on July 14, 2012 and the cut off for inclusion of the SRs/MAs was December 31(st) 2011. The PRISMA statement was used to assess the quality of reporting. Analysis was performed using Excel 2003, RevMan 5. RESULTS: A total of 312 studies were included. Fifteen diseases systems were covered. According to the PRISMA checklist, there had been serious reporting flaws in following items: structured summary (item 2, 22.4%), objectives (item 4, 18.9%), protocol and registration (item 5, 2.6%), risk of bias across studies (item 15, 26.3%), funding (item 27, 28.8%). The subgroup analysis showed that there had been some statistically significant improvement in total compliance for 9 PRISMA items after the PRISMA was released, 6 items were statistically improved regarding funded articles, 3 items were statistically improved for CSCD articles, and there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on 22 items for SCI articles (P<0.050). CONCLUSION: The numbers of diagnostic SRs/MAs is increasing annually. The quality of reporting has measurably been improved over the previous years. Unfortunately, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting including protocol and registration, search, risk of bias across studies, and funding. Future Chinese reviewers should address issues on these aspects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3897563
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38975632014-01-24 The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China Ge, Long Wang, Jian-cheng Li, Jin-long Liang, Li An, Ni Shi, Xin-tong Liu, Yin-chun Tian, Jin-hui PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The quality of reporting in systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of diagnostic tests published by authors in China has not been evaluated. The aims of present study are to evaluate the quality of reporting in diagnostic SRs/MAs using the PRISMA statement and determine the changes in the quality of reporting over time. METHODS: According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we searched five databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of knowledge, to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic tests. The searches were conducted on July 14, 2012 and the cut off for inclusion of the SRs/MAs was December 31(st) 2011. The PRISMA statement was used to assess the quality of reporting. Analysis was performed using Excel 2003, RevMan 5. RESULTS: A total of 312 studies were included. Fifteen diseases systems were covered. According to the PRISMA checklist, there had been serious reporting flaws in following items: structured summary (item 2, 22.4%), objectives (item 4, 18.9%), protocol and registration (item 5, 2.6%), risk of bias across studies (item 15, 26.3%), funding (item 27, 28.8%). The subgroup analysis showed that there had been some statistically significant improvement in total compliance for 9 PRISMA items after the PRISMA was released, 6 items were statistically improved regarding funded articles, 3 items were statistically improved for CSCD articles, and there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on 22 items for SCI articles (P<0.050). CONCLUSION: The numbers of diagnostic SRs/MAs is increasing annually. The quality of reporting has measurably been improved over the previous years. Unfortunately, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting including protocol and registration, search, risk of bias across studies, and funding. Future Chinese reviewers should address issues on these aspects. Public Library of Science 2014-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC3897563/ /pubmed/24465781 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085908 Text en © 2014 Ge et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ge, Long
Wang, Jian-cheng
Li, Jin-long
Liang, Li
An, Ni
Shi, Xin-tong
Liu, Yin-chun
Tian, Jin-hui
The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China
title The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China
title_full The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China
title_fullStr The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China
title_full_unstemmed The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China
title_short The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China
title_sort assessment of the quality of reporting of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in diagnostic tests published by authors in china
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897563/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24465781
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085908
work_keys_str_mv AT gelong theassessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT wangjiancheng theassessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT lijinlong theassessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT liangli theassessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT anni theassessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT shixintong theassessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT liuyinchun theassessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT tianjinhui theassessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT gelong assessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT wangjiancheng assessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT lijinlong assessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT liangli assessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT anni assessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT shixintong assessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT liuyinchun assessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina
AT tianjinhui assessmentofthequalityofreportingofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesindiagnostictestspublishedbyauthorsinchina