The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar

Tian, Jinhui, Zhang, Jun, Ge, Long, Yang, Keqin and Song, Fujian (2017) The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 85. 50–58. ISSN 0895-4356

[thumbnail of Accepted manuscript]
Preview
PDF (Accepted manuscript) - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (599kB) | Preview
[thumbnail of Tian_et_al_2017_SRs_China_vs_USA_ICE]
Preview
PDF (Tian_et_al_2017_SRs_China_vs_USA_ICE)
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (372kB) | Preview

Abstract

Objective: To compare the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China and those from the United States (the USA). Study Design: From systematic reviews of randomised trials published in 2014 in English, we randomly selected 100 from China and 100 from the USA. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR tool, and reporting quality assessed using the PRISMA tool. Results: Compared with systematic reviews from the USA, those from China were more likely to be a meta-analysis, published in low impact journals, and a non-Cochrane review. The mean summary AMSTAR score was 6.7 (95% confidence interval: 6.5 to 7.0) for reviews from China and 6.6 (6.1 to 7.1) for reviews from the USA, and the mean summary PRISMA score was 21.2 (20.7 to 21.6) for reviews from China and 20.6 (19.9 to 21.3) for reviews from the USA. The differences in summary quality scores between China and the USA were statistically non-significant after adjusting for multiple review factors. Conclusions: The overall methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China are similar to those from the USA, although the quality of systematic reviews from both countries could be further improved.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: systematic review,methodological quality,reporting quality,risk of bias,validity,evidence based medicine
Faculty \ School: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School
UEA Research Groups: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Epidemiology and Public Health
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Health Services and Primary Care
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Public Health and Health Services Research (former - to 2023)
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Population Health
Depositing User: Pure Connector
Date Deposited: 23 Jan 2017 21:32
Last Modified: 07 Dec 2024 01:24
URI: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/62149
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.004

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item