The selection of outcome measurement instruments (OMI) is a prerequisite for accurately collecting health outcome data. Conducting a systematic review of OMI can provide an important reference for researchers and practitioners to select the most appropriate OMI. In order to improve the reporting quality of the systematic review of OMI, foreign researchers published the PRISMA-COSMIN reporting guideline in the J Clin Epidemiol in June 2024. This article introduces the research team, development process, and items of the reporting guideline, and analyzes the items with examples. We hope our attempt could help domestic researchers improve the overall quality of OMI systematic reviews.
The purpose of a scoping review is to help researchers gain a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the current state of development in a field. In this paper, we explained the background and core contents of the scoping review report specification checklist (PRISMA extension for scoping reviews, PRISMA-ScR) and interpreted each item with examples to guide domestic scholars to write scoping reviews and improve their reporting quality.
ObjectiveTo carry out a retrospective study of the reporting quality and current situation of the systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) in pediatric field in China, as well as compliance with the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. MethodsSeven core Chinese pediatric journals were hand-searched. Two reviewers extracted data independently using predesigned data extraction form, crosschecked data, and discussed to solve discrepancy. The PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality respectively, and subgroup analysis was conducted by different total cites and different published time. SPSS 22.0 was used to for statistical analysis. Percentage was used to describe categorical data and Chi-square test was used to compare the difference among groups. ResultsA total of 157 SRs/MA were included. The proportion of SRs/MA related to interventions was the biggest (61.1%, 96 SRs/MA). (1) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions in the PRISMA checklist was better:the coincidence rate of twenty entries was above 50%; (2) The coincidence rate of observational SRs/MA in the MOOSE guidelines was not so good:the coincidence rate of 15 entries was less than 50%, even some of them were less than 20%. There were no significant difference between different total cites (≤5 vs. > 5) in PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. (3) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions had been improved to some extent in most of items after the PRISMA guidelines published, and the differences were statistically significant respectively in No. 8, 19, 20, and 23 (P≤0.05). ConclusionsThe number of SRs/MA published in the pediatric journals in China is increasing generally, the coincidence rate of SRs/MAs related to interventions have been obviously improved after the PRISMA guidelines published, and it's better than the coincidence rate of observational SRs/MAs in MOOSE guidelines. In a word, we should pay more attention to the quality of SRs/MAs, but not just the number.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of surgical meta-analyses published in English in 2014.MethodsAll meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in 2014 were selected from PubMed and EMbase. The characteristics of these meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological quality were assessed by the PRISMA and AMSTAR, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsA total of 197 meta-analyses covering 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR score (by items) were 22.2±2.4 and 7.8±1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with a R2 of 0.754. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors who had previously published meta-analysis was significantly higher in reporting and methodological quality than those who had not (P<0.001). Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these reporting (P<0.001) and methodological (P<0.001) quality between studies published in Q1 ranked journals and (Q2+Q3) ranked jounals. On multivariate analyses, region of origin (non-Asiavs. Asia), publishing experience of first authors (ever vs. never), rank of publishing journals (Q1 vs. Q2+Q3), and preregistration (presence vs. absence) were associated with better reporting and methodologic quality, independently.ConclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of current surgical meta-analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors' experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration may be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analysis, which deserves more attention from future meta-analysis reviewers.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsDatabase including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched from inception to December 2016 to collect SRs/MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting and methodological qualities using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR tool.ResultsTwenty-seven SRs/MAs of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM were included in this overview. The average score of AMSTAR was 7.04. The worst score were the item 1 (26 studies didn't provide an ‘a priori’ design), item 4 (10 studies didn't provide whether the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?), item 10 and item 11 (15 studies didn't assess the likelihood of publication bias and the potential conflicts of interest). The PRISMA score ranged from 17.0 to 24.5. The main problems of reporting were protocol and registration, search, additional analyses and funding.ConclusionThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs/MAs of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes are not high.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews on efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen in treatment of diabetic foot.MethodsCNKI, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data, The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMbase databases were searched to collect systematic reviews or meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic foot from inception to November 17th, 2019. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then, AMSTAR 2 tool and PRISMA statement were used to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of included systematic reviews, and the outcome indicators were comprehensively analyzed.ResultsA total of 10 systematic reviews were included. The results of AMSTAR 2 suggested that 6 systematic reviews were of extremely low quality, 3 of low quality, and 1 of high quality. The PRISMA score ranged from 16.5 to 27. The results of the included systematic reviews showed that hyperbaric oxygen therapy might be superior to other interventions in ulcer healing rate and large amputation rate without increasing the risk of adverse events. ConclusionsThe existing systematic reviews/meta-analysis evidence shows that hyperbaric oxygen therapy may have certain curative effect on diabetic foot, however, its methodology and report quality evaluation are insufficient.
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 17th, 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.
The PRISMA aims to enhance the transparency and reporting quality of systematic reviews. PRISMA 2020 is an update version of PRISMA 2009, which was published in BMJ in March, 2021. This article compared the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA 2009, interpreted PRISMA 2020 with representative examples, aiming to help Chinese scholars better understand and apply this reporting guideline, thus to improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews.
The PRISMA-DTA Statement is an expanded checklist of the original PRISMA, which is aimed at improving the reporting quality of the systematic review or meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. It was published on JAMA in January 2018. This paper explained it and provided reference for improving the reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of DTA for Chinese authors.
ObjectivesTo assess the characteristics, methodological and reporting qualities of systematic reviews on community interventions in China.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM databases were searched for studies of community interventions from inception to August 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological and reporting quality by AMSTAR tool and PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was performed by SPSS 20.0 software.ResultsA total of 18 systematic reviews of community interventions were included. The average AMSTAR score was 4.67±1.68, and all studies did not provide the list of included and excluded studies or a statement on conflict of interests. The average PRISMA score was 16.42±3.65, and over 50.0% of the included systematic reviews did not perform protocol and registration, search, additional analyses, risk of bias of included studies and funding.ConclusionsThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses of community interventions in China is insufficient. The combination of results, quality of individual research and the evaluation of publication bias should be paid more attention to improve methodological quality. The reporting of meta-analyses of community interventions in China should follow the PRISMA checklist.