Guo Liping, Xing Xin, Ren Junjie, Huang Xinyu, Miller Sarah, White Howard, Yang Kehu
Evidence-Based Medicine Centre, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu 730000, China; Evidence-Based Social Sciences Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu 730000, China; Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu 730000, China; Campbell UK & Ireland, School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, 69/71 University Street, Belfast BT7 1HL, UK.
Evidence-Based Medicine Centre, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu 730000, China; Evidence-Based Social Sciences Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu 730000, China; Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu 730000, China.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Dec;176:111548. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111548. Epub 2024 Oct 9.
To evaluate and compare the reporting quality of observational systematic reviews and meta-analyses (OSRMA) published in Chinese- and English-language social science journals using the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline.
We searched the Social Science Core Index via Web of Science and the Chinese Social Science Core Index via China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for OSRMAs published from 2012 to 2022 (before December 2022). The process of literature search, selection, and data extraction were performed double blind.
We identified 634 OSRMAs, of which 349 were in English-language journals and 285 in Chinese-language journals. The mean reporting completeness rate was 54.6%, and reviews in English had higher reporting completeness than those in Chinese (55.2% vs 53.9%). All the reviews reported well on background, method, and conclusion, with average reporting rates of 68.1%, 65.2%, and 88.8%, respectively. However, the reporting of search strategy was ignored, with an average rate of 42.9% for reviews in English and 25.8% for reviews in Chinese, especially on the qualifications of searchers, effort to include all available studies, search software used, handling unpublished studies, and contact with authors. The reporting transparency of these reviews was statistically significantly influenced by multiple review factors, including the language of journals, year of publication, the number of authors, the reporting guideline followed, and the declaration of funding source.
OSRMAs in social science demonstrate low reporting quality, especially in Chinese-language journals. We suggest adapting the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline to the social science context and promoting its use among researchers and reviewers in this field.
使用《流行病学观察性研究的元分析指南》评估和比较发表在中文和英文社会科学期刊上的观察性系统评价和元分析（OSRMA）的报告质量。
我们通过科学网检索社会科学核心索引，并通过中国知网数据库检索中文社会科学核心索引，以查找2012年至2022年（2022年12月之前）发表的OSRMA。文献检索、筛选和数据提取过程采用双盲进行。
我们共识别出634篇OSRMA，其中349篇发表在英文期刊上，285篇发表在中文期刊上。平均报告完成率为54.6%，英文综述的报告完成率高于中文综述（55.2%对53.9%）。所有综述在背景、方法和结论方面报告良好，平均报告率分别为68.1%、65.2%和88.8%。然而，搜索策略的报告被忽视，英文综述的平均报告率为42.9%，中文综述为25.8%，特别是在搜索者的资质、纳入所有可用研究的努力、使用的搜索软件、未发表研究的处理以及与作者的联系方面。这些综述的报告透明度在统计学上受到多个综述因素的显著影响，包括期刊语言、发表年份、作者数量、遵循的报告指南以及资金来源声明。
社会科学领域的OSRMA报告质量较低，尤其是在中文期刊中。我们建议将《流行病学观察性研究的元分析指南》适用于社会科学背景，并在该领域的研究人员和审稿人中推广使用。
