Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture have become increasingly popular in China and have been published in large numbers. This review provides the first examination of epidemiological characteristics of these SRs as well as compliance with the PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.
Objectives: To examine epidemiological and reporting characteristics as well as methodological quality of SRs of acupuncture published in Chinese journals.
Methods: Four Chinese databases were searched (CBM, CSJD, CJFD and Wanfang Database) for SRs of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), from inception through December 2010. Data were extracted into Excel spreadsheets. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively.
Results: A total of 88 SRs were identified, None of the reviews had been updated. Less ne-third (27.3%) were written by clinicians and one-third (33%) were reported in specialty journals. The impact factors of 53.4% of the journals published in were zero. Information retrieval was not comprehensive in more than half (59.1%) of the reviews. Most (62.8%) did not reported information about quality assessment, while less than half (36.4%) reported assessing for publication bias. Statistical mistakes appeared in one-third (30.3%) of reviews. Though 93.2% reviews used the term 'systematic review’ or 'meta analysis' in the title, no reviews reported conflicts of interest and were updated two or more years after they were published.
Conclusions: While many SRs of acupuncture interventions have been published in Chinese journals, the quality of these reviews is troubling. As a potential key source of information for clinicians and researchers, not only were many of these reviews incomplete, some also contained mistakes or were misleading. Focusing on improving the quality of SRs of acupuncture, rather than continuing to publish them in great quantity, is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.
Objectives: To examine epidemiological and reporting characteristics as well as methodological quality of SRs of acupuncture published in Chinese journals.
Methods: Four Chinese databases were searched (CBM, CSJD, CJFD and Wanfang Database) for SRs of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), from inception through December 2010. Data were extracted into Excel spreadsheets. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively.
Results: A total of 88 SRs were identified, None of the reviews had been updated. Less ne-third (27.3%) were written by clinicians and one-third (33%) were reported in specialty journals. The impact factors of 53.4% of the journals published in were zero. Information retrieval was not comprehensive in more than half (59.1%) of the reviews. Most (62.8%) did not reported information about quality assessment, while less than half (36.4%) reported assessing for publication bias. Statistical mistakes appeared in one-third (30.3%) of reviews. Though 93.2% reviews used the term 'systematic review’ or 'meta analysis' in the title, no reviews reported conflicts of interest and were updated two or more years after they were published.
Conclusions: While many SRs of acupuncture interventions have been published in Chinese journals, the quality of these reviews is troubling. As a potential key source of information for clinicians and researchers, not only were many of these reviews incomplete, some also contained mistakes or were misleading. Focusing on improving the quality of SRs of acupuncture, rather than continuing to publish them in great quantity, is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.