Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Evidence-based Nursing Center, West China School of Nursing, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Feb 22;24(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02172-y.
BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews have emerged as a valuable method for synthesizing emerging evidence, providing a comprehensive contextual overview, and influencing policy and practice developments. The objective of this study is to provide an overview of scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions over the last decades. METHOD: We conducted a comprehensive search of nine databases and six grey literature databases for scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions. The reporting quality of the included reviews was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for PRISMA-ScR checklist. We performed both quantitative and qualitative analyses, examining the conduct of the scoping reviews and exploring the breadth of research topics covered. We used Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare methodological issues and reporting quality in English and Chinese-language reviews. RESULTS: A total of 392 reviews published between 2013 and 2022 were included, 238 English-reported reviews and 154 Chinese-reported reviews, respectively. The primary purposes of these reviews were to map and summarize the evidence, with a particular focus on health and nursing topics. 98.7% of reviews explicitly used the term "scoping review", and the Arksey and O'Malley framework was the most frequently cited framework. Thirty-five English-reported scoping reviews provided a protocol for scoping review. PubMed was the most common source in English-reported reviews and CNKI in Chinese-reported reviews. Reviews published in English were more likely to search the grey literature (P = 0.005), consult information specialists (P < 0.001) and conduct an updated search (P = 0.012) than those in Chinese. Reviews published in English had a significantly high score compared to those published in Chinese (16 vs. 14; P < 0.001). The reporting rates in English-reported reviews were higher than those in Chinese reviews for seven items, but lower for structured summary (P < 0.001), eligibility criteria (P < 0.001), data charting process (P = 0.009) and data items (P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: There has been a significant increase in the number of scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions each year since 2020. While the research topics covered are diverse, the overall reporting quality of these reviews is need to be improved. And there is a need for greater standardization in the conduct of scoping reviews in Chinese academic institutions.
背景:范围综述作为一种综合新兴证据、提供全面背景概述以及影响政策和实践发展的有价值方法已经出现。本研究的目的是概述过去几十年中在中国学术机构进行的范围综述。
方法:我们对九个数据库和六个灰色文献数据库进行了全面检索,以获取在中国学术机构进行的范围综述。使用 PRISMA-ScR 清单评估纳入综述的报告质量。我们进行了定量和定性分析,检查范围综述的进行情况,并探讨涵盖的研究主题的广度。我们使用卡方检验和 Wilcoxon 秩和检验比较了英文和中文综述中的方法学问题和报告质量。
结果:共纳入 2013 年至 2022 年期间发表的 392 篇综述,分别为 238 篇英文报告综述和 154 篇中文报告综述。这些综述的主要目的是绘制和总结证据,特别关注健康和护理主题。98.7%的综述明确使用了“范围综述”一词,阿特塞和奥马利框架是最常被引用的框架。35 篇英文报告综述提供了范围综述的方案。在英文报告综述中,PubMed 是最常见的来源,而在中文报告综述中,CNKI 是最常见的来源。与中文综述相比,英文综述更有可能检索灰色文献(P=0.005)、咨询信息专家(P<0.001)和进行更新检索(P=0.012)。与中文综述相比,英文综述的得分显著较高(16 分对 14 分;P<0.001)。英文综述的报告率在七个项目上高于中文综述,但在结构化摘要(P<0.001)、纳入标准(P<0.001)、数据图表过程(P=0.009)和数据项目(P=0.015)上则较低。
结论:自 2020 年以来,每年在中国学术机构进行的范围综述数量显著增加。虽然涵盖的研究主题多种多样,但这些综述的整体报告质量需要提高。并且,在中国学术机构进行范围综述的过程中需要更加标准化。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024-2-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-1-16
Health Technol Assess. 2006-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014-4-29
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-6
Psychopharmacol Bull. 2024-7-8
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia. 2025-6-14
BMC Palliat Care. 2025-5-22
Front Public Health. 2022
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022-4-28
JBI Evid Implement. 2021-3
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021-2
JBI Evid Synth. 2020-10
Physiotherapy. 2019-12
Health Info Libr J. 2019-9