Methodological and reporting quality of dose-response meta-analyses published in Chinese journals
Zhang Weixin
Xiong Ying
Xu Chang
Jia Pengli
Liu Yu
Zhang Chao
Li Sheng
Abstract：Objective To assess the methodological and reporting quality of dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs) published in Chinese journals by AMSTAR and PRISMA. Method CNKI, WanFang data, VIP and CBM were searched to collect DRMAs published in Chinese journals during 1st Jan, 2010 to 30th Dec, 2016. The following data including: education background of first author, database that being searched, the number of databases that being searched, whether reporting guidelines were used, whether being funded were extracted. The adherence of AMSTAR and PRISMA was assessed. Results A total of 28 DRMAs were included. The adherence of AMSTAR was 45.5%±0.11. The highest (100%) items were: providing the characteristics of the included studies, using appropriate methods to combine the findings of studies, assessing the likelihood of publication bias. The lowest items were: providing a priori design; stating the conflicts of interests. The adherence of PRISMA was 77.4%± 0.75. The highest (100%) items were: describing the rationale, listing and define all variables, stating the principal summary measures, presenting characteristics of each study and results of each meta-analysis done, presenting results of the assessment of publication bias. The results of regression analyses showed that the relations between the adherence of AMSTAR and the education background of first author (β=0.57, 95%CI: -5.94~7.08); the number of authors (β=0.07, 95%CI: -2.87~3.01); whether there are methodologists (β=-5.09, 95%CI: -17.37~7.19), the year of publication (β=0.49, 95%CI: -2.90~3.89); whether there is funding (β=-7.10, 95%CI: -20.07~6.87) were not statistically significant. The relations between the adherence of PRISMA and the education background of first author (β=2.21, 95%CI: -1.89~6.30); the number of authors (β=-1.07, 95%CI: -2.91~0.78), whether there are methodologists (β=-0.74, 95%CI: -8.45~0.98), the year of publication (β=0.80, 95%CI:-1.34~2.93);whether there is funding (β=-2.89, 95%CI: -11.68~5.89) were not statistically significant. Conclusion The methodological quality of DRMAs in Chinese journals is poor, and the reporting quality is moderate. The results of regression analyses show that the relations between the adherence of AMSTAR/PRISMA and the education background of first author; the number of authors; whether there are methodologists; the year of publication; whether there are funding are not statistically significant. There is an urgent need to increase the use of reporting guidelines and methodological tools in China.
Keywords：Dose-response meta-analysisMethodological qualityReporting quality
Publication Date：2017-01-01
Online Publishing Date：2025-08-15(First online date of this platform, not the publication date of the document)
Pages：5( 1300-1304 )