IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0028130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk of Bias Tool in Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture in Chinese Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Yali Liu
  • Shengping Yang
  • Junjie Dai
  • Yongteng Xu
  • Rui Zhang
  • Huaili Jiang
  • Xianxia Yan
  • Kehu Yang

Abstract

Background: Use of a risk of bias (ROB) tool has been encouraged and advocated to reviewers writing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). Selective outcome reporting and other sources of bias are included in the Cochrane ROB tool. It is important to know how this specific tool for assessing ROB has been applied since its release. Our objectives were to evaluate whether and to what extent the new Cochrane ROB tool has been used in Chinese journal papers of acupuncture. Methods: We searched CBM, TCM database, CJFD, CSJD, and the Wanfang Database from inception to March 2011. Two reviewers independently selected SRs that primarily focused on acupuncture and moxibustion, from which the data was extracted and analyzed. Results: A total of 836 SRs were identified from the search, of which, 105 were included and four are awaiting assessment. Thirty-six of the 105 SRs were published before release of the Cochrane ROB tool (up to 2009). Most used the Cochrane Handbook 4.2 or Jadad's scale for risk or quality assessment. From 2009 to March 2011 69 SRs were identified. While “risk of bias” was reported for approximately two-thirds of SRs, only two SRs mentioned use of a “risk of bias tool” in their assessment. Only 5.8% (4/69) of reviews reported information on all six domains which are involved in the ROB tool. A risk of bias graph/summary figure was provided in 2.9% (2/69) of reviews. Most SRs gave information about sequence generation, allocation concealment, blindness, and incomplete outcome data, however, few reviews (5.8%; 4/69) described selective reporting or other potential sources of bias. Conclusions: The Cochrane “risk of bias” tool has not been used in all SRs/MAs of acupuncture published in Chinese Journals after 2008. When the ROB tool was used, reporting of relevant information was often incomplete.

Suggested Citation

  • Yali Liu & Shengping Yang & Junjie Dai & Yongteng Xu & Rui Zhang & Huaili Jiang & Xianxia Yan & Kehu Yang, 2011. "Risk of Bias Tool in Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture in Chinese Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(12), pages 1-6, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0028130
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028130
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028130&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0028130?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0028130. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.