Chang Tianying, Cui Yingzi, Zhang Ying, Ma Jinhui, Tan Jing, Wang Jian
EBM Office, The Affiliated Hospital to Changchun University of Chinese Medicine, Changchun 130021, China.
Neurology Department, The Affiliated Hospital to Changchun University of Chinese Medicine, Changchun 130021, China.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2023 Jan 24;2023:4612036. doi: 10.1155/2023/4612036. eCollection 2023.
Systematic reviews focusing on the effectiveness of different kinds of healthcare interventions have been widely published, but there were few guidelines for reporting safety concerns before 2016. The PRISMA harms checklist, which was published in 2016, can standardize reporting quality.
To evaluate the safety information reporting quality of oral traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in systematic reviews before and after the PRISMA harms checklist was published and to explore factors associated with better reporting.
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify all systematic reviews using oral TCM as interventions published before (from 2013 to 2015) and after (from 2017 to 2020) the PRISMA harms checklist was published. We used the PRISMA harms checklist to assess the quality of reporting of the safety information to included systematic reviews.
In total, 200 systematic reviews were sampled from eligible studies published between 2013 and 2020. Reviews from 2016 were excluded. Scores on the PRISMA harms checklist (23 items) ranged from 0 to 12. A systematic reviews published after 2016 had better reporting quality compared with studies published before 2016 with regard to the title (=0.03), results of individual studies (=0.016), and risk of bias across studies (=0.043). In all included systematic reviews of our study, the state conclusion in coherence with review findings was reported adequately with the proportion of adherence at 95%; other items had a reporting proportion ranging from 0% to 57%. The four essential reporting items of the PRISMA harms checklist also had a low reporting quality ranging from 0% to 4%.
Oral TCM systematic reviews reported inadequate safety information before and after the PRISMA harms checklist was published. This survey suggested that the PRISMA harms checklist should be recommended more to both original research and systematic review authors.
聚焦于不同类型医疗保健干预措施有效性的系统评价已广泛发表，但在2016年之前，关于报告安全问题的指南较少。2016年发布的PRISMA危害清单可规范报告质量。
评估PRISMA危害清单发布前后，系统评价中口服中药安全性信息的报告质量，并探索与更好报告相关的因素。
我们检索了PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Embase，以识别所有将口服中药作为干预措施的系统评价，这些评价在PRISMA危害清单发布之前（2013年至2015年）和之后（2017年至2020年）发表。我们使用PRISMA危害清单评估纳入的系统评价中安全信息的报告质量。
总共从2013年至2020年发表的符合条件的研究中抽取了200篇系统评价。排除了2016年的评价。PRISMA危害清单（23项）的得分范围为0至12。与2016年之前发表的研究相比，2016年之后发表的系统评价在标题（=0.03）、单个研究结果（=0.016）和各研究的偏倚风险（=0.043）方面报告质量更好。在我们研究的所有纳入系统评价中，与评价结果一致的状态结论报告充分，依从比例为95%；其他项目的报告比例范围为0%至57%。PRISMA危害清单的四个基本报告项目报告质量也较低，范围为0%至4%。
在PRISMA危害清单发布前后，口服中药系统评价报告的安全信息均不足。这项调查表明，应更多地向原始研究和系统评价作者推荐PRISMA危害清单。
