Methodological quality analysis of systematic reviews of the burden of illness—PubMed database as an example_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

LIANG Cui ^1,2,3 , DENG Xinxin ^1,2,3 , CUI Lu ^1,2,3 , WANG Hanbin ^1,2,3 , HU Xiaoye ^1,2,3 , HUANG Jiayi ^1,2,3 ,  YANG Kehu ^2,3 ,  LI Xiuxia ^1,2,3

1. Health Technology Assessment Center/Evidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
2. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
3. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

YANG Kehu, Email: yangkh-ebm@lzu.edu.cn; LI Xiuxia, Email: lixiuxia@lzu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Systematic review; Meta-analysis; AMSTAR-2; Methodology; Burden of disease

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202409027

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness, analyses the factors affecting it, so as to provide a reference basis for improving the methodological quality of related studies. Methods Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness were identified in PubMed, searching from its inception to 12 October 2024. Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness was included, the methodological quality of the included literature was evaluated using AMSTAR-2, and data were extracted using Excel 2021. Results A total of 308 systematic reviews/ meta-analysis were included, with a fluctuating upward trend in the number of publications from 2006 to 2024; of these, a total of 12 were rated as low quality. According to the AMSTAR-2 entries, the largest number of documents fully conformed to entry 16 (82.14%), followed by entry 5 (81.49%), and entry 8 (72.73%); one document conformed to entry 10 (0.32%), and relatively few conformed to entry 12 (68.83%), entry 13 (85.39%), and entry 15 (67.53%). Conclusion The methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness needs to be improved, and the main problems include the lack of pre-study protocols, the absence of a list of excluded literature, and the less than adequate explanation of heterogeneity and risk of bias, etc. There is still a need to further improve the methodological quality of the systematic reviews and to promote the long-term development of evidence based medicine.

Citation： LIANG Cui, DENG Xinxin, CUI Lu, WANG Hanbin, HU Xiaoye, HUANG Jiayi, YANG Kehu, LI Xiuxia. Methodological quality analysis of systematic reviews of the burden of illness—PubMed database as an example. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2025, 25(2): 190-194. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202409027 Copy

1.	Tremmel M, Gerdtham UG, Nilsson PM, et al. Economic burden of obesity: a systematic literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2017, 14(4): 435.
2.	张洁, 钱序, 陈英耀, 等. 疾病负担研究进展. 中国卫生经济, 2005, (5): 69-71.
3.	GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet, 2020, 396(10258): 1204-1222.
4.	GBD 2021 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet, 2024, 403(10440): 2100-2132.
5.	胡丹, 康德英, 吴宇侠, 等. 国内发表的中药相关系统评价的方法学质量评价. 中国中西医结合杂志, 2011, 31(3): 402-406.
6.	周鹏翔, 闫盈盈, 翟所迪. 国内医院药学人员系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2017, 17(2): 228-234.
7.	车鹏, 胡俊, 唐雪莉, 等. 《四川精神卫生》杂志发表的干预类随机对照试验的系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量评价. 四川精神卫生, 2022, 35(2): 188-193.
8.	徐俊峰, 安妮, 周为文, 等. 《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(5): 605-611.
9.	Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. Amstar 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008.
10.	Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0. 2.
11.	席瑾, 陈昊, 程洁, 等. 针灸治疗多囊卵巢综合征的系统评价的质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2019, 19(2): 205-211.
12.	樊茂霞, 戴国华, 高武霖, 等. 芪参益气滴丸治疗慢性心力衰竭的系统评价再评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2023, 23(9): 1060-1065.
13.	Faggion CM Jr. Critical appraisal of amstar: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2015, 15: 63.
14.	方程, 邓巍, 樊景春, 等. 系统评价与Meta分析的注册平台简介. 同济大学学报(医学版), 2019, 40(3): 380-387.
15.	Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev, 2012, 1: 7.
16.	Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ, 2010, 182(1): 13-14.
17.	陶欢, 杨乐天, 平安, 等. 随机或非随机防治性研究系统评价的质量评价工具AMSTAR 2解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(1): 101-108.
18.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998, 280(3): 278-280.
19.	靳英辉, 马恩婷, 花巍, 等. 国内护理领域系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
20.	来晓磊, 黄明月, 刘红旭, 等. 中医药治疗慢性心力衰竭系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告质量评价. 中医杂志, 2023, 64(15): 1544-1549.
21.	刘亦琳, 徐桂兴, 黄柳杨, 等. 针灸治疗支气管哮喘的系统评价再评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2022, 22(8): 955-963.
22.	曹妍, 王妍, 张建华, 等. 2022年我国《循证护理》杂志发表的系统评价与Meta分析文献质量评价. 循证护理, 2023, 9(6): 1008-1012.
23.	卢存存, 柯立鑫, 汤昊, 等. 中文期刊发表的氨甲环酸Meta分析的报告质量与方法学质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2021, 21(11): 1332-1338.
24.	郑明华. Meta分析软件应用与实例解析. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2013.
25.	熊俊, 陈日新. 系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量的评价工具AMSTAR. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(9): 1084-1089.
26.	张旭, 左丽倩, 刘明秀, 等. 108篇系统评价或Meta分析的方法学质量评价—基于AMSTAR-2. 中国社会医学杂志, 2021, 38(4): 476-480.

1. Tremmel M, Gerdtham UG, Nilsson PM, et al. Economic burden of obesity: a systematic literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2017, 14(4): 435.
2. 张洁, 钱序, 陈英耀, 等. 疾病负担研究进展. 中国卫生经济, 2005, (5): 69-71.
3. GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet, 2020, 396(10258): 1204-1222.
4. GBD 2021 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet, 2024, 403(10440): 2100-2132.
5. 胡丹, 康德英, 吴宇侠, 等. 国内发表的中药相关系统评价的方法学质量评价. 中国中西医结合杂志, 2011, 31(3): 402-406.
6. 周鹏翔, 闫盈盈, 翟所迪. 国内医院药学人员系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2017, 17(2): 228-234.
7. 车鹏, 胡俊, 唐雪莉, 等. 《四川精神卫生》杂志发表的干预类随机对照试验的系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量评价. 四川精神卫生, 2022, 35(2): 188-193.
8. 徐俊峰, 安妮, 周为文, 等. 《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(5): 605-611.
9. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. Amstar 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008.
10. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0. 2.
11. 席瑾, 陈昊, 程洁, 等. 针灸治疗多囊卵巢综合征的系统评价的质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2019, 19(2): 205-211.
12. 樊茂霞, 戴国华, 高武霖, 等. 芪参益气滴丸治疗慢性心力衰竭的系统评价再评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2023, 23(9): 1060-1065.
13. Faggion CM Jr. Critical appraisal of amstar: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2015, 15: 63.
14. 方程, 邓巍, 樊景春, 等. 系统评价与Meta分析的注册平台简介. 同济大学学报(医学版), 2019, 40(3): 380-387.
15. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev, 2012, 1: 7.
16. Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ, 2010, 182(1): 13-14.
17. 陶欢, 杨乐天, 平安, 等. 随机或非随机防治性研究系统评价的质量评价工具AMSTAR 2解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(1): 101-108.
18. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998, 280(3): 278-280.
19. 靳英辉, 马恩婷, 花巍, 等. 国内护理领域系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
20. 来晓磊, 黄明月, 刘红旭, 等. 中医药治疗慢性心力衰竭系统评价/Meta分析的方法学与报告质量评价. 中医杂志, 2023, 64(15): 1544-1549.
21. 刘亦琳, 徐桂兴, 黄柳杨, 等. 针灸治疗支气管哮喘的系统评价再评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2022, 22(8): 955-963.
22. 曹妍, 王妍, 张建华, 等. 2022年我国《循证护理》杂志发表的系统评价与Meta分析文献质量评价. 循证护理, 2023, 9(6): 1008-1012.
23. 卢存存, 柯立鑫, 汤昊, 等. 中文期刊发表的氨甲环酸Meta分析的报告质量与方法学质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2021, 21(11): 1332-1338.
24. 郑明华. Meta分析软件应用与实例解析. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2013.
25. 熊俊, 陈日新. 系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量的评价工具AMSTAR. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(9): 1084-1089.
26. 张旭, 左丽倩, 刘明秀, 等. 108篇系统评价或Meta分析的方法学质量评价—基于AMSTAR-2. 中国社会医学杂志, 2021, 38(4): 476-480.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Methodological quality analysis of systematic reviews of the burden of illness—PubMed database as an example

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content