Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) or Meta analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to provide the highest level of evidence for surgeons to access the sources of information. However, not all published SR or MA are rigorously performed.
Objectives: To assess the reporting and methodological quality of SRs or MAs of intervention published in Chinese surgical journals.
Methods: 3 Chinese databases were used to search 20 Chinese surgical journal for SRs or MAs on interventions of RCTs, from inception through October 2012. Data were extracted into Excel soft. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively.
Results: 262 records were searched, 79 SRs or MAs on interventions of RCTs were identified, most (69/79, 87.34%) of which used the terms SR or MA in the title. 84.81% (67/79) studies were written by hospital and only 12.66% (10/79) by hospital and university. The most commonly treated conditions were diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue (24/79, 30.38%), diseases of the digestive system (22/79, 27.85%). And surgical intervention (53/79, 67.09%) was most commonly. Funding sources were reported for 7 reviews (8.86%), 57 reviews (72.15%) reported the tool of quality assessment, the most commonly is Cochrane Handbook (28/79, 49.12%). According to the AMSTAR checklist (Table 1), the score range of the methodological quality was 2.0 to 10.0, the average score was 6.49 ± 1.50. The results of PRISMA checklist shows that the score range of the reporting quality was 8.0–23.0, the average score was 17.76 ± 3.27 (Table 2).
Conclusions: The reporting and methodological quality of SRs or MAs published in Chinese surgical journal is poor, we recommend AMSTAR and PRISMA statement for the optimal conduct and reporting of SRs or MAs in surgery.
Objectives: To assess the reporting and methodological quality of SRs or MAs of intervention published in Chinese surgical journals.
Methods: 3 Chinese databases were used to search 20 Chinese surgical journal for SRs or MAs on interventions of RCTs, from inception through October 2012. Data were extracted into Excel soft. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively.
Results: 262 records were searched, 79 SRs or MAs on interventions of RCTs were identified, most (69/79, 87.34%) of which used the terms SR or MA in the title. 84.81% (67/79) studies were written by hospital and only 12.66% (10/79) by hospital and university. The most commonly treated conditions were diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue (24/79, 30.38%), diseases of the digestive system (22/79, 27.85%). And surgical intervention (53/79, 67.09%) was most commonly. Funding sources were reported for 7 reviews (8.86%), 57 reviews (72.15%) reported the tool of quality assessment, the most commonly is Cochrane Handbook (28/79, 49.12%). According to the AMSTAR checklist (Table 1), the score range of the methodological quality was 2.0 to 10.0, the average score was 6.49 ± 1.50. The results of PRISMA checklist shows that the score range of the reporting quality was 8.0–23.0, the average score was 17.76 ± 3.27 (Table 2).
Conclusions: The reporting and methodological quality of SRs or MAs published in Chinese surgical journal is poor, we recommend AMSTAR and PRISMA statement for the optimal conduct and reporting of SRs or MAs in surgery.