Abstract

Objective To assess the methodological and reporting quality of Chinese-and English-language systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) published by Chinese authors between 2016 and 2018.

Study design and setting We searched MEDLINE and Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) for SRs/MAs led by Chinese authors published between 2016 and 2018. We used random sampling to select 10% of the eligible SRs/MAs published in each year from CSCD, and then matched the same number of SRs/MAs in MEDLINE. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. Stratified analyses were conducted to compare the differences of quality between Chinese-and English language SRs/MAs.

Results We identified 336 SRs/MAs (168 in Chinese and 168 in English). The reporting quality in Chinese-language SRs/MAs was slightly lower than English-language SRs/MAs (mean PRISMAscores: 20.58 vs. 21.71 in 2016, 19.87 vs. 21.24 in 2017, and 21.29 vs.22.38 in 2018). Less than half of both Chinese-and English-language SRs/MAs complied with item 5 (protocol and registration), item 7 (information sources), item 8 (search) and item 27 (funding)). The methodological quality in Chinese-language SRs/MAs was also slightly lower than English -language SRs/MAs (mean AMSTAR-2 scores: 8.07 vs. 9.36 in 2016; 9.21 vs. 10.26 in 2017; 8.86 vs. 9.28 in 2018). Three items (item 2: established a protocol; item 4: use a comprehensive literature search; and item 10: report the sources of funding) were adhered to by less than 10% of both Chinese-and English-language SRs/MAs. Only one (0.6%) Chinese-language SRs/MA and nine (5.4%) English-language SRs/MAs were rated as high methodological quality.

Conclusion The reporting and methodological quality of English-language SRs/MAs conducted by authors from China between 2016 and 2018 were slightly better than those of Chinese-language SRs/MAs.

Keywords AMSTAR 2; China; Methodological quality; PRISMA; Reporting quality; Systematic review.

Cao L, Yao L, Hui X, Li J, Zhang X, Li M, Feng Z, Ren M, Xian K, Sun Y, Liu Y, Luo X, Chen Y, Yang K. Clinical Epidemiology in China series. Paper 3: The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by China' researchers in English-language is higher than those published in Chinese-language. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Dec; 140: 178-188. doi: 10.1016/jjclinepi.2021.08.014. Epub 2021 Aug 18. PMID:34418547.