Objective: To review and analyze the prevailing information and quality of published systematic reviews and Meta-analysis of pneumonia in China.
Methods: After a CNKI, VIP, Wanfang and CMB database retrieval of systematic reviews and Meta-analysis of pneumonia published in Chinese journals, two reviewers, blinded to author (s), et al, independently collected and analyzed the common information and quality, using the form of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSR) and the quality of reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement.
Results: Eleven papers, of which 4 were systematic reviews, 7 Meta-analysis were identified. Three hundred and twenty-six studies were analyzed with involvement of 17 971 individuals distributed in 30 domestic administrative regions and 7 foreign countries. None of these articles used the form of CSR or the QUOROM statement to report their results. In all 4 domains and 40 items of the form of CSR, 4 articles addressed 25 items, 3 addressed 2, 2 addressed 1, 1 addressed 5, 0 addressed 7, and the overall proportion for correspondent item information presented was 70.6% (113/160). In all 6 domains and 18 minor terms of the QUOROM statement, 7 articles addressed 10 items, 5 addressed 2, 4 addressed 2, 2 addressed 2, 1 addressed 1, 0 addressed 1, and the overall proportion for correspondent minor terms information presented was 73.8% (93/126). In all 48 checklist items, 7 articles addressed 10 items, 6 addressed 2, 5 addressed 1, 4 addressed 3, 3 addressed 5, 2 addressed 7, 1 addressed 6, 0 addressed 14, and the overall proportion for correspondent item information presented was 39.9% (134/336).
Conclusion: These studies of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses of pneumonia in China starts late, only a few of researchers and participants join in the project, and the financial support is insufficient. The quality of literature is passable, but it is weak in some areas such as data sources, selection searching, validity assessment, review methods, study characteristics, etc. The authors suggest that advanced methodological training is necessary for reviewers and stronger financial support is needed.