Clinical Epidemiology in China series. Paper 3: The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by China' researchers in English-language is higher than those published in Chinese-language

Liujiao Cao; Liang Yao; Xu Hui; Jing Li; Xianzhuo Zhang; Meixuan Li; Ziyun Feng; Mengjuan Ren; Keyao Xian; Yanrui Sun; Yunlan Liu; Xufei Luo; Yaolong Chen; Kehu Yang

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.014

Clinical Epidemiology in China series. Paper 3: The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by China' researchers in English-language is higher than those published in Chinese-language

J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Dec:140:178-188. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.014. Epub 2021 Aug 18.

Authors

Liujiao Cao¹, Liang Yao², Xu Hui³, Jing Li³, Xianzhuo Zhang⁴, Meixuan Li⁵, Ziyun Feng⁴, Mengjuan Ren³, Keyao Xian⁴, Yanrui Sun⁶, Yunlan Liu³, Xufei Luo³, Yaolong Chen⁷, Kehu Yang⁸

Affiliations

¹ Evidence-based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; West China School of Nursing, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China. Electronic address: ljcaolj@163.com.
² Health Research Methodology I Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and impact, McMaster University, Canada.
³ Evidence-based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
⁴ The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
⁵ Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China.
⁶ The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
⁷ Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; Lanzhou University Institute of Health Data Science, Lanzhou, China; Lanzhou GRADE Centre, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou, China. Electronic address: chevidence@lzu.edu.cn.
⁸ Evidence-based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; Lanzhou GRADE Centre, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China. Electronic address: yangkh-ebm@lzu.edu.cn.

PMID: 34418547
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.014

Abstract

Objective: To assess the methodological and reporting quality of Chinese- and English -language systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) published by Chinese authors between 2016 and 2018.

Study design and setting: We searched MEDLINE and Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) for SRs/MAs led by Chinese authors published between 2016 and 2018. We used random sampling to select 10% of the eligible SRs/MAs published in each year from CSCD, and then matched the same number of SRs/MAs in MEDLINE. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. Stratified analyses were conducted to compare the differences of quality between Chinese- and English language SRs/MAs.

Results: We identified 336 SRs/MAs (168 in Chinese and 168 in English). The reporting quality in Chinese-language SRs/MAs was slightly lower than English-language SRs/MAs (mean PRISMA scores: 20.58 vs. 21.71 in 2016, 19.87 vs. 21.24 in 2017, and 21.29 vs. 22.38 in 2018). Less than half of both Chinese- and English-language SRs/MAs complied with item 5 (protocol and registration), item 7 (information sources), item 8 (search) and item 27 (funding)). The methodological quality in Chinese -language SRs/MAs was also slightly lower than English -language SRs/MAs (mean AMSTAR-2 scores: 8.07 vs. 9.36 in 2016; 9.21 vs. 10.26 in 2017; 8.86 vs. 9.28 in 2018). Three items (item 2: established a protocol; item 4: use a comprehensive literature search; and item 10: report the sources of funding) were adhered to by less than 10% of both Chinese- and English -language SRs/MAs. Only one (0.6%) Chinese-language SRs/MA and nine (5.4%) English-language SRs/MAs were rated as high methodological quality.

Conclusion: The reporting and methodological quality of English-language SRs/MAs conducted by authors from China between 2016 and 2018 were slightly better than those of Chinese -language SRs/MAs.

Keywords: AMSTAR 2; China; Methodological quality; PRISMA; Reporting quality; Systematic review.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

China
Humans
Language
Meta-Analysis as Topic*
Periodicals as Topic / standards
Periodicals as Topic / statistics & numerical data
Systematic Reviews as Topic* / methods
Systematic Reviews as Topic* / standards