Objective: Acupuncture overviews are increasing rapidly; however, their reporting quality is yet unclear. We aimed to investigate the reporting quality of relevant overviews according to the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed from inception to August 16, 2022 for overviews on acupuncture therapies. Reporting quality of included overviews was evaluated using the PRIOR statement, and the results were cross-checked. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess the predictors of the reporting completeness. GraphPad 9.4 was utilized to generate an evidence map, Excel 2019 was used to extract and manage data, and R 4.2.3 was used for data analysis. Results: A total of 49 overviews published from 2006 to 2022 were included, of which China ranked first with 38 overviews. The most frequently searched database was PubMed/ Medline (n = 48, 98%), and commonly used methodological quality assessment tool was AMSTAR-2 (n = 14, 29%). The overarching themes centered on acupuncture for obstetrics, gynecology, reproductive diseases, as well as depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Reporting quality needs to be improved involving the definition of systematic reviews (SRs), overlap of primary studies and SRs, methods for managing discrepant data across SRs, risk of bias in primary studies, heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis of synthesized results, reporting bias assessment, and registration and protocol. Moreover, publication in recent years and receiving funding support were significantly associated with higher overall reporting quality score (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Based on the PRIOR statement, this methodological study indicates that the reporting quality of the included acupuncture overviews is poor. In the future, authors of overviews are encouraged to use the PRIOR statement for standardized reporting. Furthermore, it is recommended that journal editors mandate the inclusion of this statement in authors' reports and require a complete PRIOR checklist.

BackgroundAn increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) in the environmental field have been published in recent years as a result of the global concern about the health impacts of air pollution and temperature. However, no study has assessed and compared the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of air pollutants and extreme temperatures. This study aims to assess and compare the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of ambient air pollutants and extreme temperatures.MethodsPubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos databases were searched. Two researchers screened the literature and extracted information independently. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed through A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). The reporting quality was assessed through Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).ResultsWe identified 405 SRs (286 for air pollution, 108 for temperature, and 11 for the synergistic effects). The methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs were suboptimal, with major deficiencies in protocol registration. The methodological quality of SRs of air pollutants was better than that of temperature, especially in terms of satisfactory explanations for any heterogeneity (69.6% v. 45.4%). The reporting quality of SRs of air pollution was better than temperature, however, adherence to the reporting of the assessment results of risk of bias in all SRs (53.5% v. 34.3%) was inadequate.ConclusionsMethodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effect of air pollutants were higher than those of temperatures. However, deficiencies in protocol registration and the assessment of risk of bias remain an issue for both pollutants and temperatures. In addition, developing a risk-of-bias assessment tool applicable to the temperature field may improve the quality of SRs.

Background and Objectives: To evaluate and map the reporting and methodological quality of network meta-analysis (NMA) on acupuncture.Methods: Published acupuncture NMAs were searched through eight databases from inception to February 2022. The reporting and methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Network Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-NMA) statement and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist.Results: A total of 113 NMAs were identified. Most (99, 87.61%) studies were performed in China. Most studies focused on multiple acupuncture techniques (82.30%), and the main studied ailments were pain and poststroke sequelae (20.24%). The median (interquartile range (IQR)) score of the reporting quality was 26.5 (25-28.5). However, poor reporting rates in the protocol and registration (33.63%) and geometry of the network (35.40%), especially for China-based studies, were identified. The methodological quality of only 2 (1.77%) English studies was high. The reporting rate of Chinese studies was below 15% on each of items 4, 7, 10, and 12.Conclusion: The reporting quality of the NMAs was moderate, but the methodological quality was very low. The reporting and methodological quality of future NMAs, especially for Chinese studies, need further improvement. (c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of single-patient (N-of-1) trials and protocols based on the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT) statement and the standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials (SPIRIT) extension and elaboration for N-of-1 trials (SPENT) checklist to examine the factors that influenced reporting quality. Methods Four electronic databases were searched to identify N-of-1 trials and protocols from 2015 to 2020. Quality was assessed by two reviewers. We calculated the overall scores based on binary responses in which "Yes" was scored as 1 (if the item was fully reported), and "No" was scored as 0 (if the item was not clearly reported or not definitely stated). Results A total of 78 publications (55 N-of-1 trials and 23 protocols) were identified. The mean reporting score (SD) of the N-of-1 trials and protocols were 29.24 (0.89) and 29.61 (1.83), respectively. For the items related to outcomes, sample size, allocation concealment protocol, and informed consent materials, the reporting quality was low. Our results showed that the year of publication (t = -0.793, p = 0.872 for the trials and t = 1.352, p = 0.623 for the protocols) and the impact factor of the journal (t = 1.416, p = 0.619 for the trials and t = 0.359, p = 0.667 for the protocols) were not factors associated with better reporting quality. Conclusion With the publication of the CENT 2015 statement and the SPENT 2019 checklist, authors should adhere to the relevant reporting guidelines and improve the reporting quality of N-of-1 trials and protocols.

Objectives: To examine the characteristics, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in social science journals in China. Study Design and Setting: The Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) databases were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analysis published between January 2000 and December 2019. We randomly selected 200 articles from the 401 identified in our search. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklists were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality, respectively. Results: The 200 articles we selected covered a wide range of research fields in 9 disciplines, most of which belonged to management, education and psychology. The mean AMSTAR score and PRISMA score was 8.99 +/- 3.36 points and 14.74 +/- 3.96 points, respectively. These findings indicated that the quality of the systematic reviews was below the average level. Meanwhile, year of publication was related to both methodological quality (P = 0.001) and reporting quality (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Although many systematic reviews and meta-analysis have been published in top Chinese journals, the methodological and reporting quality is troubling. Thus, the most urgent task is to increase the standard of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of every discipline rather than continuing to publish them in great quantity. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed in China and published in medical journals between 2014 and 2018. Study design and setting: We conducted a comprehensive search in multiple databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, CBM (China Biology Medicine), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang Data. We included all clinical practice guidelines developed in China between 2014 and 2018. The AGREE II tool and the RIGHT checklist were used to appraise the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included guidelines, respectively. Results: We identified 17,188 records, and included finally 573 CPGs. Most (n=507, 88.5%) were published in Chinese, and 508 (88.7%) were about Western medicine. Only 62 (10.8%) of the guidelines used the GRADE approach. The mean overall score of methodological quality over all guidelines was 19.4%, and the mean scores for the AGREE II domains were 28.6% (Scope and purpose), 17.0% (Stakeholder involvement), 11.7% (Rigor of development), 32.2% (Clarity of presentation), 14.2% (Applicability) and 12.8% (Editorial independence). The mean overall score for reporting quality over all guidelines was 30.2%, with the following mean scores for each RIGHT domain: 55.6% (Basic information), 43.8% (Background), 14.5% (Evidence), 29.2% (Recommendations), 10.7% (Review and quality assurance), 12.6% (Funding and declaration of interest) and 8.4% (Other information). Subgroup analyses found that both the methodological and reporting quality were generally higher among CPGs that used evidence grading systems or reported receiving funding. Conclusion: Both the methodological quality and the reporting quality of CPGs developed in China have improved over time, but are still below the international average.

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 PRISMA scores: 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.

Objective: This study collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the social sciences in China and assessed their risk of bias and reporting quality. Study design and setting: Three databases were systematically searched for publications from January 2000 to June 2020 for RCTs in the social sciences published by Chinese researchers. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool, and reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Social and Psychological Interventions (CONSORT-SPI). Results: A total of 316 RCTs were identified, including 204 articles in English and 112 articles in Chinese. The most frequently researched interventions focused on education (33.9%), and the most frequently studied population were students (32.9%). Eighty-seven percent of RCTs had intermediate reporting quality. Twenty-four of the 43 CONSORT-SPI sub-items had a compliance rate of less than 50%. Most RCTs had an unclear risk of bias for blinding outcome assessors (84.5%), blinding participants and personnel (82.9%), allocation concealment (73.1%), and random sequence generation (68.0%). A low proportion of CONSORT-SPI items were reported and, high proportion of the papers had unclear risk of bias. Conclusion: The quality and reporting of RCTs in the social sciences needs improvement in China, especially for reporting methods and results. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias as they lacked important methodological information. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Objectives: To assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach. Study Design and Setting: A structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID-19 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP from inception until June 2020. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Results: In total, 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, over 50% of which (128, 52.7%) were from 14 developing countries, with China contributing the most reviews (76, 31.3%). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, 30 (12.3%) were of moderate quality, 63 (25.9%) were of low quality, and 150 (61.7%) were of critically low quality. In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 14 (10-18). Regarding the topics of the reviews, 24 (9.9%) focused on the prevalence of COVID-19, 69 (28.4%) focused on the clinical manifestations, 30 (12.3%) focused on etiology, 43 (17.7%) focused on diagnosis, 65 (26.7%) focused on treatment, 104 (42.8%) focused on prognosis, and 25 (10.3%) focused on prevention. These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID-19 (161, 66.3%), followed by children (22, 9.1%) and pregnant patients (18, 7.4%). Conclusion: This study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background In view of the inadequacy and incompleteness of currently-reported animal experiments and their overall poor quality, we retrospectively evaluated the reporting quality of animal experiments published in Chinese journals adhering to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Results The databases CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM were searched from inception until July 2018. Two appropriately-trained reviewers screened and extracted articles independently. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess the quality of the published reports of animal experiments. The compliance rate of every item was analyzed relative to their date of publication. A total of 4342 studies were included, of which 73.0% had been cited <= 5 times. Only 29.0% (1261/4342) were published in journals listed in the Chinese Science Citation Database. The results indicate that the compliance rate of approximately half of the sub-items (51.3%, 20/39) was less than 50%, of which 65.0% (13/20) was even less than 10%. Conclusions The reporting quality of animal experiments in Chinese journals is not at a high level. Following publication of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010, the compliance rate of the majority of its requirements has improved to some extent. However, less attention has been paid to the ethics and welfare of experimental animals, and a number of specific items in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections continue to not be reported in sufficient detail. Therefore, it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate researchers to adhere to them in the future, and in particular promote the use of the guidelines in specialized journals in order that the design, implementation, and reporting of animal experiments is promoted, to ultimately improve their quality.