Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals
- PMID: 26187084
- DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.11.020
Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals
Abstract
Objectives: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of nursing interventions have become increasingly popular in China. This review provides the first examination of epidemiological characteristics of these SRs as well as compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews guidelines. The purpose of this study was to examine epidemiologic and reporting characteristics as well as the methodologic quality of SRs and MAs of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.
Methods: Four Chinese databases were searched (the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, and Wanfang Database) for SRs and MAs of nursing intervention from inception through June 2013. Data were extracted into Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA). The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses checklists were used to assess methodologic quality and reporting characteristics, respectively.
Results: A total of 144 SRs were identified, most (97.2%) of which used "systematic review" or "meta-analyses" in the titles. None of the reviews had been updated. Nearly half (41%) were written by nurses, and more than half (61%) were reported in specialist journals. The most common conditions studied were endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases, and neoplasms. Most (70.8%) reported information about quality assessment, whereas less than half (25%) reported assessing for publication bias. None of the reviews reported a conflict of interest.
Conclusions: Although many SRs of nursing interventions have been published in Chinese journals, the quality of these reviews is of concern. As a potential key source of information for nurses and nursing administrators, not only were many of these reviews incomplete in the information they provided, but also some results were misleading. Improving the quality of SRs of nursing interventions conducted and published by nurses in China is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.
Keywords: Chinese journals; methodologic quality; systematic reviews.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions published in Chinese journals.J Altern Complement Med. 2012 Sep;18(9):813-7. doi: 10.1089/acm.2011.0274. J Altern Complement Med. 2012. PMID: 22924413 Review.
-
Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine interventions published in Chinese journals.PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e20185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020185. Epub 2011 May 25. PLoS One. 2011. PMID: 21633698 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Tools to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews of nursing intervention in China: Global implications of the findings.Nurs Outlook. 2017 Jul-Aug;65(4):380-391. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2016.11.004. Epub 2016 Nov 24. Nurs Outlook. 2017. PMID: 28024756 Review.
-
Epidemiology, methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of nursing interventions published in China.Int J Nurs Pract. 2014 Dec;20(6):689-700. doi: 10.1111/ijn.12255. Int J Nurs Pract. 2014. PMID: 25532885
-
Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study.BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 7;7(2):e013905. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013905. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28174224 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study.PLoS One. 2016 Sep 26;11(9):e0163309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163309. eCollection 2016. PLoS One. 2016. PMID: 27669416 Free PMC article.
-
A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews of nursing published in the Cochrane Library and paper-based journals.Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Dec;98(49):e18099. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018099. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019. PMID: 31804319 Free PMC article.
-
The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach.J Korean Med Sci. 2017 Feb;32(2):173-179. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.2.173. J Korean Med Sci. 2017. PMID: 28049225 Free PMC article.
-
Are systematic reviews addressing nutrition for cancer prevention trustworthy? A systematic survey of quality and risk of bias.Nutr Rev. 2022 May 9;80(6):1558-1567. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuab093. Nutr Rev. 2022. PMID: 34921318 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 19;6(1):263. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8. Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 29258593 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials