Reviewgold2014

The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China

Long Ge · Jiancheng Wang · Jinlong Li · Liang Li · Ni An · Xintong Shi +2 more

27 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The quality of reporting in systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of diagnostic tests published by authors in China has not been evaluated. The aims of present study are to evaluate the quality of reporting in diagnostic SRs/MAs using the PRISMA statement and determine the changes in the quality of reporting over time. METHODS: According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we searched five databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of knowledge, to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic tests. The searches were conducted on July 14, 2012 and the cut off for inclusion of the SRs/MAs was December 31(st) 2011. The PRISMA statement was used to assess the quality of reporting. Analysis was performed using Excel 2003, RevMan 5. RESULTS: A total of 312 studies were included. Fifteen diseases systems were covered. According to the PRISMA checklist, there had been serious reporting flaws in following items: structured summary (item 2, 22.4%), objectives (item 4, 18.9%), protocol and registration (item 5, 2.6%), risk of bias across studies (item 15, 26.3%), funding (item 27, 28.8%). The subgroup analysis showed that there had been some statistically significant improvement in total compliance for 9 PRISMA items after the PRISMA was released, 6 items were statistically improved regarding funded articles, 3 items were statistically improved for CSCD articles, and there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on 22 items for SCI articles (P<0.050). CONCLUSION: The numbers of diagnostic SRs/MAs is increasing annually. The quality of reporting has measurably been improved over the previous years. Unfortunately, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting including protocol and registration, search, risk of bias across studies, and funding. Future Chinese reviewers should address issues on these aspects.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

References

2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2010Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration 2014International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 2003Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative 2002Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines 2003Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy.

Cited by

2017Variable methodological quality and use found in systematic reviews referenced in STEMI clinical practice guidelines 2021Clinical Epidemiology in China series. Paper 3: The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by China' researchers in English-language is higher than those published in Chinese-language 2024Evaluation of Compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Systematic Reviews in Three Major Periodontology Journals

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.