Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Good systematic reviews are important sources of information for clinicians, patients, government and other decision makers. There are an increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and it is necessary to assess their quality.
Objectives: To assess the methodology and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of TCM published in paper-based journals in China.
Methods: A systematic search of the literature was performed to identify the maximum possible number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that had evaluated the therapeutic effects of TCM. Two assessors (Zhang, Shang) independently extracted data and put into an Access database for analysis. Two assessment tools were used, including Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM).
Results: Eighty-one reports were identified (excluded theses; 49 named as 'systematic review' and thirty-two named as 'meta-analysis'. More than half of all reviews had methodological and report flaws that could limit their validity. The main deficiencies were: the literature search, reporting of the characteristics of the included and excluded studies, quality assessment of trials, combining findings.
Conclusions: Methodology and reporting quality are poor in both systematic review and meta-analysis articles about TCM published in paper-based journals in China.
Objectives: To assess the methodology and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of TCM published in paper-based journals in China.
Methods: A systematic search of the literature was performed to identify the maximum possible number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that had evaluated the therapeutic effects of TCM. Two assessors (Zhang, Shang) independently extracted data and put into an Access database for analysis. Two assessment tools were used, including Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM).
Results: Eighty-one reports were identified (excluded theses; 49 named as 'systematic review' and thirty-two named as 'meta-analysis'. More than half of all reviews had methodological and report flaws that could limit their validity. The main deficiencies were: the literature search, reporting of the characteristics of the included and excluded studies, quality assessment of trials, combining findings.
Conclusions: Methodology and reporting quality are poor in both systematic review and meta-analysis articles about TCM published in paper-based journals in China.