Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:Some systematic reviews about Chinese traditional medicine have been produced in China. However, little is known about the quality of evidence they provided.
Objectives: Using GRADE to assess the quality of evidence in systematic reviews about Chinese traditional medicine.
Methods: We selected the systematic reviews about Chinese traditional medicine to cancer as our sample. The mesh terms ‘meta-analysis’ and ‘systematic review’ were used to search the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database (CBM) up to September 2012. And the systematic reviews about Chinese traditional medicine to cancer were screened and included to analyze. Each systematic review was independently identified and evaluated by two reviewers, and discussed with the third member when disagreement appeared.
Results: 67 relevant articles including 295 outcomes were included. 1 (0.3%) outcome was rated as high quality, 55 (19.6%) as moderate, 157 (53.2%) as low, and 82 (27.8%) as very low (Fig. 1). The quality was downgraded for study limitations (93.2%), imprecision (22.7%), inconsistency (17.3%), publication bias (90.5%), and indirectness (0.7%).
Conclusions: Most evidences in systematic reviews about Chinese traditional medicine to cancer were low or very low. Study limitations were the major factors for downgrading evidence.
Objectives: Using GRADE to assess the quality of evidence in systematic reviews about Chinese traditional medicine.
Methods: We selected the systematic reviews about Chinese traditional medicine to cancer as our sample. The mesh terms ‘meta-analysis’ and ‘systematic review’ were used to search the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database (CBM) up to September 2012. And the systematic reviews about Chinese traditional medicine to cancer were screened and included to analyze. Each systematic review was independently identified and evaluated by two reviewers, and discussed with the third member when disagreement appeared.
Results: 67 relevant articles including 295 outcomes were included. 1 (0.3%) outcome was rated as high quality, 55 (19.6%) as moderate, 157 (53.2%) as low, and 82 (27.8%) as very low (Fig. 1). The quality was downgraded for study limitations (93.2%), imprecision (22.7%), inconsistency (17.3%), publication bias (90.5%), and indirectness (0.7%).
Conclusions: Most evidences in systematic reviews about Chinese traditional medicine to cancer were low or very low. Study limitations were the major factors for downgrading evidence.
Images
