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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Yali, Zhang, Rui, Huang, Jiao, Zhao, Xu, Liu, Danlu, Sun, Wanting, Mai, Yuefen, Zhang, Peng, Wang, Yajun, Cao, Hua, Yang, Ke hu
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