Article type
Abstract
"Background This study attempts to explore the reporting characteristics of scoping reviews published in high-impact journals in China, as well as certain potential factors that may exert an influence on the quality of reporting.
Methods This study was searched in the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) for pharmaceutical and health scoping reviews, with publications limited to Chinese-language studies and publication year restricted to after Sept 2018. For this, 2 researchers were trained to independently screen out extant literature, extract relevant information, and cross-check the researched studies. Meanwhile, potential disagreements are solved through discussion or consultation with third parties. Data extraction included basic characteristics of the included studies and data on the reporting quality. Finally, the potential influence of PRISMA-ScR ascertains the number of authors, protocol and registration, pages of paper, and funding on reporting.
Results A total of 128 scoping review studies were included in this study. The analysis of the number of articles and the publication of China’s scoping reviews illustrated an increasing trend in the early years, most often focusing on the field of clinical medicine. Besides this, most of the included studies did not mention PRISMA-ScR, and an even smaller number incorrectly utilized PRISMA-ScR as a methodological guide for the sake of it. In terms of the full reporting rates, only 9 entries (45%) had full reporting rates below 50% and 6 entries (30%) had full reporting rates above 90%. Specifically, the quality of reporting on structured summary, data items, protocol and registration, eligibility criteria, and funding are most problematic. Evidently, the univariate and multivariate regression analyses exhibited statistically significant differences in the quality of reporting on 2 dimensions, namely: funding, and protocol and registration, both of which may be potential factors affecting the reporting quality.
Conclusions Presently, there exists substantial room for possible improvement in the overall reporting transparency of Chinese-scoping reviews. Additionally, journals can actively publicize and guide the application of PRISMA-ScR through the introduction of manuscripts; concurrently, the authors advocate researchers to study and learn from peer experiences and relevant studies in different countries/nations and strengthen the proper comprehension and dissemination application of PRISMA-ScR."
Methods This study was searched in the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) for pharmaceutical and health scoping reviews, with publications limited to Chinese-language studies and publication year restricted to after Sept 2018. For this, 2 researchers were trained to independently screen out extant literature, extract relevant information, and cross-check the researched studies. Meanwhile, potential disagreements are solved through discussion or consultation with third parties. Data extraction included basic characteristics of the included studies and data on the reporting quality. Finally, the potential influence of PRISMA-ScR ascertains the number of authors, protocol and registration, pages of paper, and funding on reporting.
Results A total of 128 scoping review studies were included in this study. The analysis of the number of articles and the publication of China’s scoping reviews illustrated an increasing trend in the early years, most often focusing on the field of clinical medicine. Besides this, most of the included studies did not mention PRISMA-ScR, and an even smaller number incorrectly utilized PRISMA-ScR as a methodological guide for the sake of it. In terms of the full reporting rates, only 9 entries (45%) had full reporting rates below 50% and 6 entries (30%) had full reporting rates above 90%. Specifically, the quality of reporting on structured summary, data items, protocol and registration, eligibility criteria, and funding are most problematic. Evidently, the univariate and multivariate regression analyses exhibited statistically significant differences in the quality of reporting on 2 dimensions, namely: funding, and protocol and registration, both of which may be potential factors affecting the reporting quality.
Conclusions Presently, there exists substantial room for possible improvement in the overall reporting transparency of Chinese-scoping reviews. Additionally, journals can actively publicize and guide the application of PRISMA-ScR through the introduction of manuscripts; concurrently, the authors advocate researchers to study and learn from peer experiences and relevant studies in different countries/nations and strengthen the proper comprehension and dissemination application of PRISMA-ScR."