Epidemiology, Quality and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published in Chinese Journals

[Eugene Garfield]

Epidemiology, Quality and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of 
Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published in Chinese Journals

Author(s): Ma, B (Ma, Bin); Guo, JW (Guo, Jiwu); Qi, GQ (Qi, Guoqing); Li, HM 
(Li, Haimin); Peng, JY (Peng, Jiye); Zhang, YL (Zhang, Yulong); Ding, YQ (Ding, 
Yanqin); Yang, KH (Yang, Kehu)

Source: PLOS ONE  Volume: 6  Issue: 5  Article Number: e20185  DOI: 
10.1371/journal.pone.0020185  Published: MAY 25 2011  

Abstract: Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) of TCM have become 
increasingly popular in China and have been published in large numbers. This 
review provides the first examination of epidemiological characteristics of these 
SRs as well as compliance with the PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. 
Objectives: To examine epidemiological and reporting characteristics as well as 
methodological quality of SRs of TCM published in Chinese journals. 
Methods: Four Chinese databases were searched (CBM, CSJD, CJFD and 
Wanfang Database) for SRs of TCM, from inception through Dec 2009. Data 
were extracted into Excel spreadsheets. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists 
were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, 
respectively. 
Results: A total of 369 SRs were identified, most (97.6%) of which used the 
terms systematic review or meta-analysis in the title. None of the reviews had 
been updated. Half (49.8%) were written by clinicians and nearly half (47.7%) 
were reported in specialty journals. The impact factors of 45.8% of the journals 
published in were zero. The most commonly treated conditions were diseases of 
the circulatory and digestive disease. Funding sources were not reported for 
any reviews. Most (68.8%) reported information about quality assessment, 
while less than half (43.6%) reported assessing for publication bias. Statistical 
mistakes appeared in one-third (29.3%) of reviews and most (91.9%) did not 
report on conflict of interest. 
Conclusions: While many SRs of TCM interventions have been published in 
Chinese journals, the quality of these reviews is troubling. As a potential key 
source of information for clinicians and researchers, not only were many of 
these reviews incomplete, some contained mistakes or were misleading. 
Focusing on improving the quality of SRs of TCM, rather than continuing to 
publish them in great quantity, is urgently needed in order to increase the value 
of these studies.

Language: English
Document Type: Article
KeyWords Plus: RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; METAANALYSES; 
STATEMENT

Addresses: [Ma, B; Guo, JW; Qi, GQ; Zhang, YL; Ding, YQ; Yang, KH] Lanzhou 
Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, Inst Tradit Chinese & Western Med, Sch Basic 
Med Sci, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, Peoples R China
[Guo, JW; Zhang, YL] Lanzhou Univ, Sch Clin Med 2, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, 
Peoples R China
[Peng, JY] Lib Lanzhou Univ, Lanzhou, Gansu, Peoples R China
Reprint Address: Ma, B (reprint author), Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, 
Inst Tradit Chinese & Western Med, Sch Basic Med Sci, Lanzhou 730000, 
Gansu, Peoples R China

E-mail Address: kehuyangebm2006 at 126.com
ISSN: 1932-6203
fulltext: 
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020185