Objective: To conduct a cross-sectional survey on the application status of the Grades of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Study Design and Setting: : We searched CSRs of TCM from the inception to December 2020 in the Cochrane Library database. General characteristics and details of GRADE were extracted. Results: Among 226 CSRs of TCM, 86 (38.05%) involving 711 outcomes used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence. Topics mainly focused on genitourinary diseases (17.44%), diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue (11.63%), and diseases of the nervous system (10.47%). Only 15.89% of the outcomes reported high or moderate certainty of evidence. Acupuncture was the most common intervention. There were no significant differences in evidence certainty between acupuncture and non-acupuncture, between TCM alone and integrated Chinese and western medicine, or between Chinese patent medicines and non-Chinese patent medicines ( P > 0.05). Among 1 273 instances of downgrading, 44.62% were due to the risk of bias and 40.14% due to imprecision. Conclusion: Overall, GRADE approach is not widely used in CSRs of TCM. The certainty of evidence is generally low to very low, mainly because of the serious risk of bias and imprecision. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background: To analyze the collaboration and reporting quality of the systematic reviews of social welfare in the Campbell collaboration online library. Methods: The Campbell collaboration online library was searched for systematic reviews of social welfare and the basic information extracted in order to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews using a MOOSE checklist. BICOMS-2 and UCINET software were used to produce the social network, and Comprehensive Meta Analysis (Version 2) and STATA 13.0 were used to analyze the related data. Results: Fifty-seven systematic reviews of social welfare were included. Twenty-eight items of the included social welfare systematic reviews were rated as complete (≥70%). There were significant differences between ≤2013 and ≥ 2014 in five items. These differences were as follows: research published by one organization or more than one organization in one item, more than three authors or less than four authors in two items, and one country or more than one country in six items. It's completed about researches with more than one organization, three authors or more than one country. Some items were found to have a low reporting rate of studies published before 2014, by one organization, with less than four authors or one country, respectively. The social network of authors and organizations showed good collaboration. Conclusions: Some items could be further improved with regard to the rate of reporting systematic reviews of social welfare in the Campbell collaboration online library. This could improve the overall quality of social welfare systematic reviews.