Department of Preventive Medicine, Chosun University College of Medicine, Gwangju, Korea.
Department of Internal Medicine, Chosun University College of Medicine, Gwangju, Korea.
Epidemiol Health. 2022;44:e2022108. doi: 10.4178/epih.e2022108. Epub 2022 Nov 15.
This study investigated the status quo of systematic reviews published in major journals in Korea from the perspective of protocol registration and adopting the grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system.
We examined systematic reviews published in Korea's top 15 medical journals from 2018 to 2021. Teams of 2 reviewers assessed the studies' eligibility criteria and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We collected information on study characteristics, protocol registration, and GRADE use of the included reviews, and reviewed the "Instructions for Authors" of the selected journals to assess any guidance related to systematic reviews.
Out of the 126 identified reviews, 18 (14.3%) reported that they registered or published their protocol. Only 5 (4.0%) rated the certainty of evidence; and all 5 used the GRADE system. Only 6 of 15 journals mentioned systematic reviews in their "Instructions for Authors." Six journals endorsed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework for systematic review reporting (2 mandatory, 3 recommended, and 1 unclear). None of the journals included mentioned protocol registration or certainty of evidence in their authors' guidelines.
Overall, the proportion of systematic reviews that had prior protocol registration or used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence was very low. Our study highlights the need for adherence to systematic review standards in medical journals in Korea, including prior protocol registration and certainty of evidence assessment. Our review will help improve the quality of systematic reviews in Korea.
本研究从方案注册的角度调查了韩国主要期刊发表的系统评价的现状，并采用推荐、评估、发展和评估（GRADE）系统进行分级。
我们检查了 2018 年至 2021 年韩国排名前 15 的医学期刊发表的系统评价。2 名评审员小组独立且重复评估研究的纳入标准和提取数据。我们收集了纳入评价的研究特征、方案注册和 GRADE 使用的信息，并审查了选定期刊的“作者指南”，以评估任何与系统评价相关的指南。
在确定的 126 篇综述中，有 18 篇（14.3%）报告说他们已经注册或发表了方案。只有 5 篇（4.0%）对证据的确定性进行了评级；并且所有 5 篇都使用了 GRADE 系统。在 15 种期刊中，只有 6 种在“作者指南”中提到了系统评价。6 种期刊认可了系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）框架（2 项强制性，3 项推荐，1 项不明确）。没有一家期刊在其作者指南中提到方案注册或证据的确定性。
总体而言，事先有方案注册或使用 GRADE 方法评估证据确定性的系统评价比例非常低。我们的研究强调了韩国医学期刊需要遵守系统评价标准，包括事先方案注册和证据确定性评估。我们的综述将有助于提高韩国系统评价的质量。
