Cohen Jérémie F, Korevaar Daniël A, Wang Junfeng, Spijker René, Bossuyt Patrick M
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center - University of Amsterdam, Room J1B-210, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Inserm U1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Center for Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), Paris Descartes University, 53 Avenue de l'Observatoire, 75014, Paris, France.
Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 6;4:23. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0017-3.
Chinese biomedical databases contain a large number of publications available to systematic reviewers, but it is unclear whether they are used for synthesizing the available evidence.
We report a case of two systematic reviews on the accuracy of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide for diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis. In one of these, the authors did not search Chinese databases; in the other, they did. We additionally assessed the extent to which Cochrane reviewers have searched Chinese databases in a systematic overview of the Cochrane Library (inception to 2014).
The two diagnostic reviews included a total of 269 unique studies, but only 4 studies were included in both reviews. The first review included five studies published in the Chinese language (out of 151) while the second included 114 (out of 118). The summary accuracy estimates from the two reviews were comparable. Only 243 of the published 8,680 Cochrane reviews (less than 3%) searched one or more of the five major Chinese databases. These Chinese databases index about 2,500 journals, of which less than 6% are also indexed in MEDLINE. All 243 Cochrane reviews evaluated an intervention, 179 (74%) had at least one author with a Chinese affiliation; 118 (49%) addressed a topic in complementary or alternative medicine.
Although searching Chinese databases may lead to the identification of a large amount of additional clinical evidence, Cochrane reviewers have rarely included them in their search strategy. We encourage future initiatives to evaluate more systematically the relevance of searching Chinese databases, as well as collaborative efforts to allow better incorporation of Chinese resources in systematic reviews.
中国生物医学数据库包含大量可供系统评价者使用的出版物，但尚不清楚这些数据库是否被用于综合现有证据。
我们报告了两例关于抗环瓜氨酸肽诊断类风湿关节炎准确性的系统评价案例。其中一例，作者未检索中文数据库；另一例则进行了检索。我们还在对Cochrane图书馆（建库至2014年）的系统综述中评估了Cochrane评价者检索中文数据库的程度。
这两项诊断性评价共纳入269项独立研究，但两项评价中仅4项研究被同时纳入。第一项评价纳入了5项中文发表的研究（共151项），而第二项纳入了114项（共118项）。两项评价的汇总准确性估计值具有可比性。在已发表的8680篇Cochrane评价中，只有243篇（不到3%）检索了五个主要中文数据库中的一个或多个。这些中文数据库索引了约2500种期刊，其中不到6%也被MEDLINE索引。所有243篇Cochrane评价均评估了一种干预措施，179篇（74%）至少有一位作者隶属于中国机构；118篇（49%）涉及补充医学或替代医学主题。
尽管检索中文数据库可能会发现大量额外的临床证据，但Cochrane评价者很少将其纳入检索策略。我们鼓励未来开展更多活动，更系统地评估检索中文数据库的相关性，并鼓励开展合作，以便在系统评价中更好地整合中文资源。
