Evidence-based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; West China School of Nursing, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Health Research Methodology I Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and impact, McMaster University, Canada.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Dec;140:178-188. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.014. Epub 2021 Aug 18.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological and reporting quality of Chinese- and English -language systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) published by Chinese authors between 2016 and 2018. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE and Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) for SRs/MAs led by Chinese authors published between 2016 and 2018. We used random sampling to select 10% of the eligible SRs/MAs published in each year from CSCD, and then matched the same number of SRs/MAs in MEDLINE. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. Stratified analyses were conducted to compare the differences of quality between Chinese- and English language SRs/MAs. RESULTS: We identified 336 SRs/MAs (168 in Chinese and 168 in English). The reporting quality in Chinese-language SRs/MAs was slightly lower than English-language SRs/MAs (mean PRISMA scores: 20.58 vs. 21.71 in 2016, 19.87 vs. 21.24 in 2017, and 21.29 vs. 22.38 in 2018). Less than half of both Chinese- and English-language SRs/MAs complied with item 5 (protocol and registration), item 7 (information sources), item 8 (search) and item 27 (funding)). The methodological quality in Chinese -language SRs/MAs was also slightly lower than English -language SRs/MAs (mean AMSTAR-2 scores: 8.07 vs. 9.36 in 2016; 9.21 vs. 10.26 in 2017; 8.86 vs. 9.28 in 2018). Three items (item 2: established a protocol; item 4: use a comprehensive literature search; and item 10: report the sources of funding) were adhered to by less than 10% of both Chinese- and English -language SRs/MAs. Only one (0.6%) Chinese-language SRs/MA and nine (5.4%) English-language SRs/MAs were rated as high methodological quality. CONCLUSION: The reporting and methodological quality of English-language SRs/MAs conducted by authors from China between 2016 and 2018 were slightly better than those of Chinese -language SRs/MAs.
目的：评估中国作者在 2016 年至 2018 年期间发表的中英文系统评价和荟萃分析（SRs/MAs）的方法学和报告质量。
研究设计和设置：我们检索了 MEDLINE 和中国科学引文数据库（CSCD），以获取 2016 年至 2018 年期间由中国作者发表的 SRs/MAs。我们使用随机抽样从 CSCD 中选择每年发表的合格 SRs/MAs 的 10%，然后匹配相同数量的 MEDLINE 中的 SRs/MAs。使用系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）评估报告质量，使用多系统评价评估工具（AMSTAR-2）评估方法学质量。进行分层分析以比较中英文 SRs/MAs 之间质量的差异。
结果：我们确定了 336 篇 SRs/MAs（中文 168 篇，英文 168 篇）。中文 SRs/MAs 的报告质量略低于英文 SRs/MAs（2016 年平均 PRISMA 评分：20.58 对 21.71，2017 年 19.87 对 21.24，2018 年 21.29 对 22.38）。中英文 SRs/MAs 均不到一半符合项目 5（方案和注册）、项目 7（信息来源）、项目 8（搜索）和项目 27（资金））。中文 SRs/MAs 的方法学质量也略低于英文 SRs/MAs（2016 年平均 AMSTAR-2 评分：8.07 对 9.36；2017 年 9.21 对 10.26；2018 年 8.86 对 9.28）。只有不到 10%的中英文 SRs/MAs 符合项目 2（制定方案）、项目 4（使用全面的文献搜索）和项目 10（报告资金来源）这三项要求。只有一篇（0.6%）中文 SRs/MA 和九篇（5.4%）英文 SRs/MAs 被评为高质量方法学。
结论：2016 年至 2018 年期间，中国作者发表的英文 SRs/MAs 的报告和方法学质量略好于中文 SRs/MAs。
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020-5-26
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2021-11-11
Epidemiol Health. 2023
Zotero 插件