+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Risk of bias tool in systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture in Chinese journals



Risk of bias tool in systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture in Chinese journals



Plos One 6(12): E28130



Use of a risk of bias (ROB) tool has been encouraged and advocated to reviewers writing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). Selective outcome reporting and other sources of bias are included in the Cochrane ROB tool. It is important to know how this specific tool for assessing ROB has been applied since its release. Our objectives were to evaluate whether and to what extent the new Cochrane ROB tool has been used in Chinese journal papers of acupuncture. We searched CBM, TCM database, CJFD, CSJD, and the Wanfang Database from inception to March 2011. Two reviewers independently selected SRs that primarily focused on acupuncture and moxibustion, from which the data was extracted and analyzed. A total of 836 SRs were identified from the search, of which, 105 were included and four are awaiting assessment. Thirty-six of the 105 SRs were published before release of the Cochrane ROB tool (up to 2009). Most used the Cochrane Handbook 4.2 or Jadad's scale for risk or quality assessment. From 2009 to March 2011 69 SRs were identified. While "risk of bias" was reported for approximately two-thirds of SRs, only two SRs mentioned use of a "risk of bias tool" in their assessment. Only 5.8% (4/69) of reviews reported information on all six domains which are involved in the ROB tool. A risk of bias graph/summary figure was provided in 2.9% (2/69) of reviews. Most SRs gave information about sequence generation, allocation concealment, blindness, and incomplete outcome data, however, few reviews (5.8%; 4/69) described selective reporting or other potential sources of bias. The Cochrane "risk of bias" tool has not been used in all SRs/MAs of acupuncture published in Chinese Journals after 2008. When the ROB tool was used, reporting of relevant information was often incomplete.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055585388

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 22174772

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028130


Related references

Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals. Anesthesia and Analgesia 123(4): 1018-1025, 2017

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional chinese medicine must search chinese databases to reduce language bias. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2013: 812179, 2013

Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals. Nursing Outlook 63(4): 446-455.E4, 2016

Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: a meta-epidemiological study. Anaesthesia 71(8): 955-968, 2018

Epidemiology characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine nursing interventions published in Chinese journals. International Journal of Nursing Practice 23(1), 2016

Assessment for Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Field of Hepatology. Gut and Liver 9(6): 701-706, 2016

Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 280(3): 278-280, 1998

Evaluation of methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews). Rofo 184(10): 937-940, 2013

Evaluating the methodologic quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. Rofo 185(10): 937-940, 2014

On the criteria used for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing adverse effects. European Journal of Epidemiology 30(3): 249-250, 2015

A critical appraisal of the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medical nursing interventions: a systematic review of reviews. Bmj Open 6(11): E011514, 2018

Quality appraisal of systematic reviews or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine published in Chinese journals. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi Zhongguo Zhongxiyi Jiehe Zazhi 27(4): 306-311, 2007

Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions published in Chinese journals. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 18(9): 813-817, 2012

The flood of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of acupuncture. Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies 20(3-4): 141-142, 2015

Reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture. Plos One 9(11): E113172, 2015