Suppr超能文献

中文草药 Cochrane 系统评价的报告质量。

Reporting quality of Cochrane systematic reviews with Chinese herbal medicines.

机构信息

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Hong Kong), Hong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Centre, School of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong.

Dr. Stephen Riady Chinese Medicine Library, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong.

出版信息

Syst Rev. 2019 Dec 3;8(1):302. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1218-y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) are the major interventions of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), which are typically administered as either single herbs or formulas. The Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) of CHMs are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CHMs interventions; they are expected to be accurate and reliable. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to CHM was adequately reported.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database was systematically searched for all SRs of CHM that were published up to 31 December 2017. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 9-item of CHM-related information designed according to TCM theory. Descriptive statistics were additionally used to analyze their baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 109 Cochrane SRs of CHM were identified from 1999 to 2017. For 27-item of PRISMA, 26 had the reporting compliances higher than 50%, of which 11 were fully reporting (100%). However, for CHM-related information, 65 (59.6%) SRs did not report the specific name of the CHM in the title, 42 (38.5%) lacked TCM-related rationales in the introduction, 62 (56.9%) did not include CHM-related characteristics in the additional analyses, and 77 (70.6%) did not analyze CHM results in terms of TCM-related theories in the discussion. Of 97 SRs that included clinical trials, 38 (39.2%) did not provide the details of composition and dosage of CHMs, 85 (87.6%) did not report the CHM sources, 13 (13.4%) did not provide the dosage form, 95 (97.9%) lacked CHM quality control information, and 57 (58.8%) did not describe details of the controls. For 62 (72.9%) of 85 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of CHM interventions.

CONCLUSION

Although the Cochrane SRs of CHM showed reporting compliance with PRISMA checklist, their reporting quality needs improvement, especially about full reporting of CHM interventions and of TCM-related rationales. Reporting guideline of "PRISMA extension for CHM interventions" should be developed thus to improve their quality.

摘要

背景

中草药(CHMs)是中医药(TCM)的主要干预措施,通常以单味药或方剂的形式使用。Cochrane 系统评价(SRs)是评估 CHMs 干预措施疗效和安全性的重要参考资料;它们应准确可靠。本研究旨在评估这些 SR 的报告质量,特别是是否充分报告了与 CHM 相关的必要信息。

方法

系统检索 Cochrane 数据库中截至 2017 年 12 月 31 日发表的所有 CHM 的 SR。主要分析是根据 27 项首选报告项目系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)和 9 项根据 TCM 理论设计的 CHM 相关信息来评估其报告质量。此外,还使用描述性统计来分析其基线特征。

结果

共纳入 1999 年至 2017 年期间的 109 项 Cochrane CHM SR。对于 27 项 PRISMA 项目,26 项报告符合率高于 50%,其中 11 项为完全报告(100%)。然而,对于 CHM 相关信息,65 项(59.6%)SR 在标题中未报告 CHM 的具体名称,42 项(38.5%)在引言中缺乏 TCM 相关依据,62 项(56.9%)在附加分析中未包括 CHM 相关特征,77 项(70.6%)在讨论中未根据 TCM 相关理论分析 CHM 结果。在纳入的 97 项 SR 中,38 项(39.2%)未提供 CHM 组成和剂量的详细信息,85 项(87.6%)未报告 CHM 来源,13 项(13.4%)未提供剂型,95 项(97.9%)缺乏 CHM 质量控制信息,57 项(58.8%)未详细描述对照情况。对于 62 项(72.9%)包含荟萃分析的 85 项 SR,由于对 CHM 干预措施的报告不充分,无法评估荟萃分析是否得到正确实施。

结论

虽然 Cochrane CHM SR 符合 PRISMA 清单报告要求,但报告质量仍需改进,特别是对 CHM 干预措施和 TCM 相关依据的充分报告。因此,应制定“中医药干预措施 PRISMA 扩展”报告指南,以提高其质量。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cec1/6892158/6e0e7853b59c/13643_2019_1218_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验