The Methodological and Reporting Quality Evaluation of Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses on Traditional Chinese Medicine for Ischemic Cardiomyopathy
LI Honghui
LU Jianqi
HUANG Xiaoyu
PAN Chaoxin
YE Jingxian
WEN Zhihao
Abstract：Objective:To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/Meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine for ischemic cardiomyopathy(ICM).Methods:Two researchers independently searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database(CBM),WanFang Data,the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database(VIP),PubMed,and the Medscape FMRS foreign medical information platform.Chinese and English literature on systematic reviews/Meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medicine for treatment of ICM were collected from the establishment of database to October 31,2023.The AMSTAR scale and the PRISMA 2020 scale were used to conduct methodological and reporting quality evaluations respectively.Results:A total of 12 systematic reviews/Meta-analyses literatures were included,involving 10 literatures in Chinese and 2 literatures in English.The average score of the AMSTAR scale was(7.71±1.42)with the scores for Chinese and English literatures being(7.30±1.16)and(9.75±0.35)respectively.In the evaluation results of the AMSTAR scale,two English literatures registered the prospective research protocol and clearly stated the relevant conflicts of interest.In the AMSTAR scale evaluation results,two English literatures registered the prospective study protocol and clearly stated the relevant conflicts of interest.The items with lower scores in the Chinese literature mainly included whether to provide the preliminary design plan,whether to provide a list of research literature for inclusion and exclusion,and whether to make a conflict-of-interest statement.None of the literatures provided a list of excluded evaluation literature.None of the 10 included Chinese literatures were high quality,with the low or medium quality category.Two English literatures were high quality.The average PRISMA 2020 score was(19.92±3.42),while the scores for the Chinese and English literatures were(18.95±2.82)and(24.75±1.06)respectively.The Chinese literatures scored lower primarily on items related to search strategies,credibility evaluation,registration and protocol,conflict of interest statements,and the availability of other materials.Conclusion:Systematic reviews/Meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine for ICM exhibited issues such as lacking forward-looking research design schemes,without related conflicts of interest,list of excluded studies,and insufficient result.The quality of Chinese literatures was generally lower than that of English literatures.Systematic reviews/Meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine for ICM should comply with the requirements of AMSTAR and PRISMA 2020 scales,and form high-quality systematic reviews/Meta-analyses to provide high-quality evidence for clinical practice.
Keywords：ischemic cardiomyopathytraditional Chinese medicinesystematic reviews/Meta-analysesmethodologyquality evaluation
Publication Date：2026-03-25
Online Publishing Date：2026-04-07(First online date of this platform, not the publication date of the document)
Pages：9( 812-820 )