Quality of Systematic Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Chinese Journals
Author Information
Author(s): Ma Bin, Guo Jiwu, Qi Guoqing, Li Haimin, Peng Jiye, Zhang Yulong, Ding Yanqin, Yang Kehu
Primary Institution: Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
Hypothesis
What are the epidemiological and reporting characteristics as well as methodological quality of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine published in Chinese journals?
Conclusion
The quality of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine published in Chinese journals is concerning, with many being incomplete or containing mistakes.
Supporting Evidence
- 97.6% of the reviews used the terms systematic review or meta-analysis in the title.
- 68.8% reported information about quality assessment.
- Less than half (43.6%) reported assessing for publication bias.
- Statistical mistakes appeared in one-third (29.3%) of reviews.
Takeaway
This study looked at many reviews of traditional Chinese medicine and found that while there are a lot of them, many are not very good and need to be improved.
Methodology
Data were extracted from four Chinese databases and assessed using PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists.
Potential Biases
Many reviews did not report funding sources or conflicts of interest, which may indicate potential bias.
Limitations
The study only included systematic reviews published in Chinese journals and did not assess reviews published in international journals.
Participant Demographics
The reviews included a median of 952 participants across the studies.
Statistical Information
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website