Cargando…
Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture
BACKGROUND: The QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4232579/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25397774 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113172 |
_version_ | 1782344592180379648 |
---|---|
author | Liu, Yali Zhang, Rui Huang, Jiao Zhao, Xu Liu, Danlu Sun, Wanting Mai, Yuefen Zhang, Peng Wang, Yajun Cao, Hua Yang, Ke hu |
author_facet | Liu, Yali Zhang, Rui Huang, Jiao Zhao, Xu Liu, Danlu Sun, Wanting Mai, Yuefen Zhang, Peng Wang, Yajun Cao, Hua Yang, Ke hu |
author_sort | Liu, Yali |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear how well SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies adhere to reporting standards and which reporting criteria are generally ignored in these analyses. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate reporting quality in SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies. METHODS: We performed a literature search for studies published prior to 2014 using the following public archives: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) database, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), and the Wanfang database. Data were extracted into pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was assessed based on the PRISMA checklist (27 items). RESULTS: Of 476 appropriate SRs/MAs identified in our search, 203, 227, and 46 were published in Chinese journals, international journals, and the Cochrane Database, respectively. In 476 SRs/MAs, only 3 reported the information completely. By contrast, approximately 4.93% (1/203), 8.81% (2/227) and 0.00% (0/46) SRs/Mas reported less than 10 items in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. In general, the least frequently reported items (reported≤50%) in SRs/MAs were “protocol and registration”, “risk of bias across studies”, and “additional analyses” in both methods and results sections. CONCLUSIONS: SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies have not comprehensively reported information recommended in the PRISMA statement. Our study underscores that, in addition to focusing on careful study design and performance, attention should be paid to comprehensive reporting standards in SRs/MAs on acupuncture studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4232579 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42325792014-11-26 Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture Liu, Yali Zhang, Rui Huang, Jiao Zhao, Xu Liu, Danlu Sun, Wanting Mai, Yuefen Zhang, Peng Wang, Yajun Cao, Hua Yang, Ke hu PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear how well SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies adhere to reporting standards and which reporting criteria are generally ignored in these analyses. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate reporting quality in SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies. METHODS: We performed a literature search for studies published prior to 2014 using the following public archives: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) database, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), and the Wanfang database. Data were extracted into pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was assessed based on the PRISMA checklist (27 items). RESULTS: Of 476 appropriate SRs/MAs identified in our search, 203, 227, and 46 were published in Chinese journals, international journals, and the Cochrane Database, respectively. In 476 SRs/MAs, only 3 reported the information completely. By contrast, approximately 4.93% (1/203), 8.81% (2/227) and 0.00% (0/46) SRs/Mas reported less than 10 items in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. In general, the least frequently reported items (reported≤50%) in SRs/MAs were “protocol and registration”, “risk of bias across studies”, and “additional analyses” in both methods and results sections. CONCLUSIONS: SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies have not comprehensively reported information recommended in the PRISMA statement. Our study underscores that, in addition to focusing on careful study design and performance, attention should be paid to comprehensive reporting standards in SRs/MAs on acupuncture studies. Public Library of Science 2014-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4232579/ /pubmed/25397774 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113172 Text en © 2014 Liu 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 Liu, Yali Zhang, Rui Huang, Jiao Zhao, Xu Liu, Danlu Sun, Wanting Mai, Yuefen Zhang, Peng Wang, Yajun Cao, Hua Yang, Ke hu Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture |
title | Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture |
title_full | Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture |
title_fullStr | Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture |
title_full_unstemmed | Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture |
title_short | Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture |
title_sort | reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4232579/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25397774 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113172 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liuyali reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesofacupuncture AT zhangrui reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesofacupuncture AT huangjiao reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesofacupuncture AT zhaoxu reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesofacupuncture AT liudanlu reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesofacupuncture AT sunwanting reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesofacupuncture AT maiyuefen reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesofacupuncture AT zhangpeng reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesofacupuncture AT wangyajun reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesofacupuncture AT caohua reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesofacupuncture AT yangkehu reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsmetaanalysesofacupuncture |