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.
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 50–58 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology |
| Volume | 85 |
| Early online date | 4 Jan 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - May 2017 |
Keywords
- systematic review
- methodological quality
- reporting quality
- risk of bias
- validity
- evidence based medicine