RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess qualities on methodologies and reporting on Meta-analysis used in papers being published in National Medical Journal of China. METHODS: Computerized literature searching was performed in Wangfang Medical Online to collect articles that Meta-analysis was used in the National Medical Journal of China since January 1998 until October 2014. Manual retrieval was also conducted.Qualities on methodologies and reporting were evaluated by both Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) scales. RESULTS: A total of 74 papers were included. The results on the qualities of methodology evaluation in these papers were 3 to 10 (median 7) scores, 10 articles (13.5%) were rated as high, 61 articles (82.4%) as moderate and 3 articles (4.1%) as low. No statistically significant difference existed in each year of AMSTAR score (χ(2) = 10.205, P = 0.423). The titles of AMSTAR scales with a lower coincidence rate were "Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?", "Was the conflict of interest stated?", "Was the status of publication (i.e.grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?" and "Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?". The results on the qualities of reporting evaluation in these papers were 5.5 to 26 (median 20) scores, 9 articles (12.2%) scored <15 points, 39 articles (52.7%) 15.5-21 points and 26 articles (35.1%) 21.5-27 points. There was statistically significant difference in each year of PRISMA score (F = 4.301, P = 0.000). And the year 2010 was the highest one. The titles of PRISMA scales with a lack of comprehensive reports were "Structured summary", "Objectives of introduction", "Protocol & registration", "Data collection process", "Data items", "Risk of bias in individual studies", "Risk of bias across studies", "Additional analyses", "Study selection","Risk of bias within studies", "Conclusion limitations", "Conclusions" and "Funding support" etc. CONCLUSIONS: Articles of Meta-analysis published in National Medical Journal of China have a high quality so as to provide rationales for clinical decision-making. However, both of qualities on methodology and reports sill call for continual improvements.
Assuntos
Editoração , China , Humanos , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality and reporting quality on Meta-analysis being published in the Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. METHODS: Computerized literature searching was carried out in Wanfang Medical Online to collect articles that Meta-analysis was used in the Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery since it was founded till July, 2014. Manual retrieval was also conducted. Two researchers independently screened for literature and extracted data. Qualities on methodologies or on the processes of reporting and reviewing were evaluated by both AMSTAR and PRISMA scales. RESULTS: Forty-two papers on meta-analyses were included in this study. Results on the quality of methodology evaluation showed that the lowest and highest scores were 6 and 9 respectively, the median score was 7. Two articles (4.8%) were rated as high, 40 articles (95.2%) as moderate and 0 articles (0%) as low. Although the quality of methodology was above the average, however, there were still some problems seen in some papers as the conflict of interest was not stated, the list of studies (included and excluded) was not provided, a comprehensive literature search was not performed, the likelihood of publication bias was not assessed, etc. Results on the quality of reporting evaluation showed that the lowest and highest scores were 14 and 22 respectively, the average score was 18.43 ± 2.03, 3 articles (7.1%) scored less than 15 points, 35 articles (83.3%) scored 15.5-21 points, and 4 articles (9.6%) scored 21.5-27 points. The included reviews had high quality on the titles of the report, inclusion criteria, rationale of introduction, synthesis of results, results of individual. However, the abstract, objectives of introduction, scheme and registered, inclusion criteria, research screening, additional analysis, conclusion limitations, funding support etc. were lack of comprehensive reports. CONCLUSIONS: Articles on Meta-analysis published in the Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery are of high quality. The Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery can provide better evidence for clinical decision to gastrointestinal surgeons. However, both of qualities on methodology and reports sill call for continuous improvement.
