IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0020185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Epidemiology, Quality and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published in Chinese Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Bin Ma
  • Jiwu Guo
  • Guoqing Qi
  • Haimin Li
  • Jiye Peng
  • Yulong Zhang
  • Yanqin Ding
  • Kehu Yang

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) of TCM have become increasingly popular in China and have been published in large numbers. This review provides the first examination of epidemiological characteristics of these SRs as well as compliance with the PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. Objectives: To examine epidemiological and reporting characteristics as well as methodological quality of SRs of TCM published in Chinese journals. Methods: Four Chinese databases were searched (CBM, CSJD, CJFD and Wanfang Database) for SRs of TCM, from inception through Dec 2009. Data were extracted into Excel spreadsheets. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively. Results: A total of 369 SRs were identified, most (97.6%) of which used the terms systematic review or meta-analysis in the title. None of the reviews had been updated. Half (49.8%) were written by clinicians and nearly half (47.7%) were reported in specialty journals. The impact factors of 45.8% of the journals published in were zero. The most commonly treated conditions were diseases of the circulatory and digestive disease. Funding sources were not reported for any reviews. Most (68.8%) reported information about quality assessment, while less than half (43.6%) reported assessing for publication bias. Statistical mistakes appeared in one-third (29.3%) of reviews and most (91.9%) did not report on conflict of interest. Conclusions: While many SRs of TCM interventions have been published in Chinese journals, the quality of these reviews is troubling. As a potential key source of information for clinicians and researchers, not only were many of these reviews incomplete, some contained mistakes or were misleading. Focusing on improving the quality of SRs of TCM, rather than continuing to publish them in great quantity, is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Bin Ma & Jiwu Guo & Guoqing Qi & Haimin Li & Jiye Peng & Yulong Zhang & Yanqin Ding & Kehu Yang, 2011. "Epidemiology, Quality and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published in Chinese Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(5), pages 1-6, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0020185
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020185
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020185&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0020185?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Moher & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Andrea C Tricco & Margaret Sampson & Douglas G Altman, 2007. "Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-9, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. In-Soo Shin & Juh-Hyun Shin & Dong-Eun Jang & Jiyeon Lee, 2022. "A Methodological Quality Evaluation of Meta-Analyses on Nursing Home Research: Overview and Suggestions for Future Directions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-19, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    2. Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    4. João Carlos Belloti & Aldo Okamura & Jordana Scheeren & Flávio Faloppa & Vinícius Ynoe de Moraes, 2019. "A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    5. Hansen, Henrik & Trifkovic, Neda, 2013. "Systematic Reviews: Questions, Methods and Usage," MPRA Paper 47993, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    7. Andrea C Tricco & Jamie Brehaut & Maggie H Chen & David Moher, 2008. "Following 411 Cochrane Protocols to Completion: A Retrospective Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(11), pages 1-6, November.
    8. Yali Liu & Rui Zhang & Jiao Huang & Xu Zhao & Danlu Liu & Wanting Sun & Yuefen Mai & Peng Zhang & Yajun Wang & Hua Cao & Ke hu Yang, 2014. "Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    9. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Lucy Turner & James Galipeau & Chantelle Garritty & Eric Manheimer & L Susan Wieland & Fatemeh Yazdi & David Moher, 2013. "An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    11. Osnat Wine & Alvaro Osornio Vargas & Sandra M. Campbell & Vahid Hosseini & Charles Robert Koch & Mahdi Shahbakhti, 2022. "Cold Climate Impact on Air-Pollution-Related Health Outcomes: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.
    12. Jana Schellinger & Kerry Sewell & Jamie E Bloss & Tristan Ebron & Carrie Forbes, 2021. "The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    13. Lisa Hartling & Michele P Hamm & Ricardo M Fernandes & Donna M Dryden & Ben Vandermeer, 2014. "Quantifying Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Child Health: A Meta-Epidemiological Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-6, February.
    14. Tina Ljungberg & Emma Bondza & Connie Lethin, 2020. "Evidence of the Importance of Dietary Habits Regarding Depressive Symptoms and Depression," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Xiaoqin Wang & Vivian Welch & Meixuan Li & Liang Yao & Julia Littell & Huijuan Li & Nan Yang & Jianjian Wang & Larissa Shamseer & Yaolong Chen & Kehu Yang & Jeremy M. Grimshaw, 2021. "The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), March.
    16. Xiu-xia, Li & Ya, Zheng & Yao-long, Chen & Ke-hu, Yang & Zong-jiu, Zhang, 2015. "The reporting characteristics and methodological quality of Cochrane reviews about health policy research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(4), pages 503-510.
    17. Laura Sheble, 2017. "Macro‐level diffusion of a methodological knowledge innovation: Research synthesis methods, 1972–2011," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2693-2708, December.
    18. Wanlop Jaidee & David Moher & Malinee Laopaiboon, 2010. "Time to Update and Quantitative Changes in the Results of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-7, July.
    19. Porjai Pattanittum & Malinee Laopaiboon & David Moher & Pisake Lumbiganon & Chetta Ngamjarus, 2012. "A Comparison of Statistical Methods for Identifying Out-of-Date Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-6, November.
    20. Yafang Huang & Chen Mao & Jinqiu Yuan & Zuyao Yang & Mengyang Di & Wilson Wai-san Tam & Jinling Tang, 2014. "Distribution and Epidemiological Characteristics of Published Individual Patient Data Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-8, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0020185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.