To standardize and improve the reporting quality of digital health implementation research, the Geneva Digital Health Hub has developed the guidelines and checklist for reporting digital health implementations (iCHECK-DH). This paper introduces the background of iCHECK-DH and based on practical application experiences, emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. It focuses on economic cost-effectiveness and local policy guidance in the clinical implementation of digital health technologies. This will provide valuable insights for Chinese scholars when writing implementation reports on digital health technologies.
This paper introduces the main contents of ROB-ME (Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence), including backgrounds, scope of the tool, signal questions and the operation process. The ROB-ME tool has the advantages of clear logic, complete details, simple operation and good applicability. The ROB-ME tool offers considerable advantages for assessing the risk of non-reporting biases and will be useful to researchers, thus being worth popularizing and applying.
Objective To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched by computer, and the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of corticosteroid hormone as an auxiliary means for the treatment of severe pneumonia which were published from establishment of the databases to October 25th, 2018 were searched. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to evaluate the quality of literature reports. Results A total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, all of which were non-Cochrane systematic reviews. In terms of methodological quality assessed by AMSTAR-2, there was no plan in all studies; only one study explained the reasons for inclusion in the study type; eight studies did not describe the dose and follow-up time of the intervention/control measures in detail; three studies did not indicate the evaluation tools and did not describe the risk bias; six studies did not explicitly examine publication bias. In terms of reporting quality assessed by PRISMA, all studies had no pre-registered study protocol or registration number; thirteen studies did not describe the specific amount of articles retrieved from each database; three studies did not present their retrieval strategies or excluded reasons in detail; no funding sources were identified in included studies; eight studies reported both whether the study was funded and whether there was a conflict of interest. Conclusions At present, there are many systematic review/meta-analysis studies on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia, and the overall quality of the study has been gradually improved. However, the common problems in the study are relatively prominent. The follow-up period and dose of intervention in the study of severe pneumonia are different, so the baseline is difficult to be unified. Suggestions: strengthening the training of researchers, standardize the research process, and report articles in strict accordance with the PRISMA statement; subgroup analysis being conducted according to the dose and duration of the hormone.
ObjectivesTo analyze the current methodological and reporting quality of both domestic and overseas clinical practice guidelines on acupuncture, and to provide reference for the development of high quality acupuncture clinical practice guidelines.MethodsGIN, NICE, AHRQ, PubMed, EMbase, AMED, CINAHL, WanFang Data, CNKI, VIP and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect domestic and overseas clinical practice guidelines on acupuncture from inception to September, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the methodological and reporting quality by using AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT tools.ResultsA total of 23 acupuncture clinical practice guidelines were included, in which three were developed by foreign institutions, and the remaining 20 guidelines were jointly developed by WHO Western Pacific Region and China Institute of Acupuncture and Moxibustion. Three foreign and two domestic guidelines were selected for evaluation. The AGREE Ⅱ evaluation showed that the domestic guidelines have higher scores in terms of " scope and purpose”, " stakeholder involvement”, " rigor of development”, " applicability” and " clarity of presentation”, while only " editorial independence” is lower. The overall recommendation is stronger than the foreign guidelines. The RIGHT evaluation showed that for three foreign guidelines, the " reported” items accounted for 52.38%, " unreported” items accounted for 38.09%, " partly reported” items accounted for 6.66%%; however, for domestic guidelines, the " reported” accounted for 45.71%, " unreported” items accounted for 40%, and " partly reported” items accounted for 14.28% respectively. Overall, the difference is not significant (SD<10%). Due to the specificity of acupuncture interventions, the use of AGREEⅡ and RIGHT to evaluate acupuncture clinical practice guidelines still had barriers to some extend on its applicability.ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of acupuncture clinical practice guidelines are relatively low. It is urgent to further improve the methodological level and reporting standards of the guidelines, and to develop evaluation tools for the acupuncture field guidelines.
ObjectiveTo provide references for scientific selection of different tools/guidelines by comprehensively collecting international and national tools/guidelines for assessing reporting quality and methodological quality of animal experiments, comparing them in development foundation, application scope, and aims. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched up to July 2014, to collect tools/guidelines for reporting quality and methodological quality of primary animal experiments. We extracted data from included guidelines/tools, including the number of items, development foundation, disease models, application scope, and assessment focus. Then descriptive analysis was conducted. ResultsA total of 32 studies were finally included, of which, 6 were for reporting quality and 26 for methodological quality. The item number of the included tools/guidelines ranged from 2 to 54. Seven tools/guidelines applied score system to assess methodological quality. Fifteen tools/guidelines were designed for specific disease models. Nineteen tools/guidelines were suitable for assessing preclinical drug studies, and 4 were designed to assess environmental toxicology research. ConclusionAlthough many tools for assessing methodological quality of animal experiments have been published so far, SYRCLE's risk of bias tool is the only one that is used to assess internal validity of animal experiments at present. Besides, although the ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC are not official mandatory reporting criteria at present, they are acknowledged by many researchers as efficient reference checklists and writing guidelines for writing and publishing animal experiments. We recommend the application of SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC, in order to efficiently improve research design, implementation, reporting, differentiation, and evaluation of animal experiments, promote the development of animal experiments, and to promote full application and translation of scientific achievements.
Adherence to reporting guidelines contributes to report methodology and outcomes of research distinctly and transparently. There are some checklists with specific study types related to surgery on the EQUATOR Network’s website. However, the IDEAL framework focuses on stepwise evaluation of surgical innovation through all stages with some key elements, which those existing guidelines may not mention. This likely results in the inaccuracy in reporting in studies attempting to follow the IDEAL recommendations and suggests a pressing need for IDEAL reporting guidelines. Considering these limitations, the IDEAL developed the IDEAL reporting guidelines between October 2018 and May 2019. The paper aimed to provide interpretation of IDEAL reporting guideline, and promote its understanding and use among Chinese researchers.
ObjectiveTo analyze the reporting and methodological quality of tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals. MethodsThe CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases were electronically searched for meta-analyses of tranexamic acid from inception to August 12th, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and used AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA 2009 to assess the methodological and reporting quality of publications. ResultsA total of 68 meta-analyses were included. The identified meta-analyses required improvement for items 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 16 in the AMSTAR 2, and items 2, 5, 8, 12, 15, 17, 22, 24, and 27 in the PRISMA 2009 assessments, respectively. The methodological and reporting quality scores were positively correlated (rs=0.36, P=0.002). Linear regression analysis identified the mentioning of PRISMA and funding support as the independent factors potentially affecting the reporting quality score (P<0.05). ConclusionsBoth the methodological and reporting quality of the tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals require improvement.
Based on previous evidence-based researches and teaching experience, our team conducted literature and book review, and summarized 4 requirements, 1) effect measure calculation and conversion, 2) registration of evidence-based research, 3) evidence-based research database and 4) quality evaluation tools and reporting guidelines. We developed an online platform of evidence-based medicine research helper using the front-end and back-end technology, which can be accessed using www.ebm-helper.cn. Currently, the online tool has included 46 scenarios for effect measure calculation and conversion, introduction of 7 evidence-based research registration platforms, 26 commonly used databases for evidence-based research and 29 quality evaluation tools and reporting guidelines. This online tool can help researchers to solve specific problems encountered in different stages of evidence-based medicine research. Promoting the application of this platform in evidence-based medicine will help researchers to use the tool scientifically and improve research efficiency.
ObjectiveTo select the key questions of the reporting quality of acupuncture therapy network meta-analysis. MethodsA question pool about reporting quality of acupuncture therapy network meta-analysis was conducted by preliminary literature research and qualitative systematic review. A correspondence questionnaire was designed and the selection of key questions was carried out through two rounds of expert consultation using the Delphi method. ResultsA total of 21 key questions were selected for the network meta-analysis report standard of acupuncture, including whether to report details of acupuncture interventions (e.g., needle type, acupoints used, number of needles inserted, depth of needle insertion, retention time, needling techniques, and treatment duration), diagnostic criteria for diseases or traditional Chinese medicine syndromes, and qualifications of acupuncture practitioners. Of these, the only three key questions answered by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were summary, protocol and registration, and source of funding, while the remaining 19 were specific to acupuncture-related report standards. ConclusionThe conducted key question on reporting guideline of acupuncture network meta-analysis can improve the standardization and rigor of relevant research and better utilize its academic and clinical value.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of surgical meta-analyses published in English in 2014.MethodsAll meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in 2014 were selected from PubMed and EMbase. The characteristics of these meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological quality were assessed by the PRISMA and AMSTAR, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsA total of 197 meta-analyses covering 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR score (by items) were 22.2±2.4 and 7.8±1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with a R2 of 0.754. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors who had previously published meta-analysis was significantly higher in reporting and methodological quality than those who had not (P<0.001). Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these reporting (P<0.001) and methodological (P<0.001) quality between studies published in Q1 ranked journals and (Q2+Q3) ranked jounals. On multivariate analyses, region of origin (non-Asiavs. Asia), publishing experience of first authors (ever vs. never), rank of publishing journals (Q1 vs. Q2+Q3), and preregistration (presence vs. absence) were associated with better reporting and methodologic quality, independently.ConclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of current surgical meta-analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors' experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration may be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analysis, which deserves more attention from future meta-analysis reviewers.