Reporting and methodological quality assessment for systematic reviews/ meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHOU Pengxiang ^1,2 , YAN Yingying ¹ ,  ZHAI Suodi ¹

1. Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, 100191, P.R.China;
2. Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Science, Peking University, Beijing, 100191, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

ZHAI Suodi, Email: zhaisuodi@163.com

Keywords：

Systematic reviews; Meta-analyses; Hospital pharmacy; Quality assessment; PRISMA; AMSTAR

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201608070

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

ObjectiveTo investigate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China, so as to improve the quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses in this field. MethodsThe literatures were retrieved from CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, CMCI, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library from the establishment date to March 17^th, 2016. According to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, authors independently screened and extracted the published information. Reporting and methodological quality of included reviews were evaluated by PRIMSA statements and AMSTAR checklists. Data analysis was conducted by using Excel 2013 software and SPSS 20.0 software. ResultsOne thousand and eighteen systematic reviews/ meta-analyses were included, including 871 Chinese literatures and 147 English literatures. The average score of PRIMSA was 18.41±2.84, and the average score of AMSTAR was 7.38±1.28. The main problems of PRIMSA were structured summary, objectives, protocol and registration, additional analyses and funding. The main problems of AMSTAR were priori design, status of publication and list of studies (included and excluded). Univariate analysis showed that some factors could improve the quality of methodology and reporting, including studies in English (P<0.000 1), published after checklists' (P<0.000 1), hospital in higher-level (P<0.000 1), illuminating the funding or interest conflict (P<0.000 1). Pearson analysis indicated that linear correlation were detected between PRISMA scores and AMSTAR scores (P<0.000 1), as well as citations and AMSTAR scores (P=0.045). ConclusionEvidenced-based pharmacy in hospital has developed rapidly, the quality of methodology and reporting have increaseed year by year, but further improvement should be considered in different aspects. The methods to evaluate the clinical application of these systematic reviews/ meta-analyses should be developed in the future.

Citation： ZHOUPengxiang, YANYingying, ZHAISuodi. Reporting and methodological quality assessment for systematic reviews/ meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2017, 17(2): 228-234. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201608070 Copy

1.	李幼平. 循证医学. 第二版. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2009: 3.
2.	李静, 李幼平. 不断完善与发展的 Cochrane 系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2008, 8(9): 742-743.
3.	熊俊, 陈日新. 系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量评价工具 AMSTAR. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(9): 1084-1089.
4.	Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7(10): 1-10.
5.	勒英辉, 马恩婷, 窦昊颖. 国内护理领域系统评价/Meta 分析的方法学与报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
6.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Plos Med, 2009, 6(6): e1000097.
7.	孙凤. 医学研究报告规范解读. 第一版. 北京. 北京大学医学出版社, 2015: 227.
8.	袁金秋, 杨声坪, 李靖媛, 等. 骨科专业中文系统评价/Meta 分析质量评价. 甘肃科技, 2010, 26(3): 143-144, 188.
9.	李青, 夏芸, 刘建平, 等. 国内中文期刊发表的中医药系统综述和 Meta 分析文献质量再评价. 北京中医药大学学报(中医临床版), 2012, 19(3): 28-33.
10.	王靖, 翁淳光, 刘琴, 等. 国内公共卫生研究领域系统评价/Meta 分析的质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(12): 1367-1374.
11.	杨树亮, 应凯, 杨庆福, 等. 国内口腔医学领域系统评价/meta 分析的方法学和报告质量评价. 上海口腔医学, 2015, 24(4): 505-509.
12.	刘登瑞, 许家科, 高明太, 等. 国内儿科领域系统评价/Meta 分析研究报告质量的回顾性分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(11): 1345-1353.
13.	闫盈盈, 易湛苗, 翟所迪. 国内医院药学人员系统评价/Meta 分析文献发表与质量研究. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(1): 92-97.
14.	周为文, 葛龙, 田金徽, 等.《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta 分析报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(4): 482-488.
15.	安妮, 徐俊峰, 田金徽, 等.《中国循证儿科杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta 分析报告质量评价. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2013, 4(8): 110-115.

1. 李幼平. 循证医学. 第二版. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2009: 3.
2. 李静, 李幼平. 不断完善与发展的 Cochrane 系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2008, 8(9): 742-743.
3. 熊俊, 陈日新. 系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量评价工具 AMSTAR. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(9): 1084-1089.
4. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7(10): 1-10.
5. 勒英辉, 马恩婷, 窦昊颖. 国内护理领域系统评价/Meta 分析的方法学与报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Plos Med, 2009, 6(6): e1000097.
7. 孙凤. 医学研究报告规范解读. 第一版. 北京. 北京大学医学出版社, 2015: 227.
8. 袁金秋, 杨声坪, 李靖媛, 等. 骨科专业中文系统评价/Meta 分析质量评价. 甘肃科技, 2010, 26(3): 143-144, 188.
9. 李青, 夏芸, 刘建平, 等. 国内中文期刊发表的中医药系统综述和 Meta 分析文献质量再评价. 北京中医药大学学报(中医临床版), 2012, 19(3): 28-33.
10. 王靖, 翁淳光, 刘琴, 等. 国内公共卫生研究领域系统评价/Meta 分析的质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2010, 10(12): 1367-1374.
11. 杨树亮, 应凯, 杨庆福, 等. 国内口腔医学领域系统评价/meta 分析的方法学和报告质量评价. 上海口腔医学, 2015, 24(4): 505-509.
12. 刘登瑞, 许家科, 高明太, 等. 国内儿科领域系统评价/Meta 分析研究报告质量的回顾性分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(11): 1345-1353.
13. 闫盈盈, 易湛苗, 翟所迪. 国内医院药学人员系统评价/Meta 分析文献发表与质量研究. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(1): 92-97.
14. 周为文, 葛龙, 田金徽, 等.《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta 分析报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(4): 482-488.
15. 安妮, 徐俊峰, 田金徽, 等.《中国循证儿科杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta 分析报告质量评价. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2013, 4(8): 110-115.

Previous Article
Tracking rural health service quality and evaluation mechanism: a biliometric analysis
Next Article
An introduction of the origin and development of N-of-1 trials

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Reporting and methodological quality assessment for systematic reviews/ meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content