Methodology and Reporting Quality of Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Zhang Junhua · Shang Hongcai · Xiang Yaozu · Ren Ming

48 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

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 Medical Research and Treatments Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

CONTEXT: Good systematic reviews/meta-analyses are important sources of information for clinicians, patients, government officials, and other decision makers. Now, there is an increasing number of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Thus, it is necessary to assess the quality of these reviews. OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodology and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of TCM published in paper-based journals in China. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed to identify the maximum possible number of reviews on the prevention and cure researches in TCM. Two assessors (Junhua and Hongcai) independently extracted data and put them into a Microsoft Access database for analysis. Two assessment tools were used: (1) the Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ); and (2) the Quality of Reporting of Meta analysis (QUOROM). RESULTS: One hundred and seven papers (107) were identified: 71 reviews called "systematic reviews" and 36 called "meta-analyses." More than half of all the reviews had methodological and reporting flaws that could have influenced the reviews' validity. The deficiencies were mainly in literature searches, characteristics of included and excluded studies reported, primary trials' quality assessment, and data merging. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology and reporting quality are poor in both systematic reviews and meta-analysis reviews of TCM published in paper-based journals in China. We should respect the need for high-quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and do these according to specification.

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 — 48 citations exist upstream.

References

1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement 1995Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists 1991Validation of an index of the quality of review articles 1994Systematic Reviews: Checklists for review articles 2000Mejora de la calidad de los informes de los metaanálisis de los ensayos clínicos controlados: el acuerdo QUOROM

Cited by

2015Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses 2009The Quality of Meta-Analyses of Genetic Association Studies: A Review With Recommendations 2012Reliability and External Validity of AMSTAR in Assessing Quality of TCM Systematic Reviews 2011Risk of Bias Tool in Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture in Chinese Journals 2019Reporting quality of Cochrane systematic reviews with Chinese herbal medicines 2015Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of meta-analyses of observational studies published in Chinese journals 2009Methodological quality of systematic reviews analyzing the use of laser therapy in restorative dentistry

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.