文献类型：期刊文献

英文题名：The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar

作者：Tian, Jinhui[1,2];Zhang, Jun[3];Ge, Long[1,2];Yang, Kehu[1,2];Song, Fujian[4]

第一作者：Tian, Jinhui

通信作者：Yang, KH[1];Yang, KH[2];Song, FJ[3]

机构：[1]Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, 199 Donggang West Rd, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, Peoples R China;[2]Key Lab Evidence Based Med & Knowledge Translat G, 199 Donggang West Rd, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, Peoples R China;[3]Gansu Univ Chinese Med, Sch Nursing, 35 East Dingxi Rd, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, Peoples R China;[4]Univ East Anglia, Norwich Med Sch, Dept Populat Hlth & Primary Care, Norwich NR4 7TJ, Norfolk, England

第一机构：Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, 199 Donggang West Rd, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, Peoples R China

通信机构：[1]corresponding author), Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, 199 Donggang West Rd, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, Peoples R China;[2]corresponding author), Key Lab Evidence Based Med & Knowledge Translat G, 199 Donggang West Rd, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, Peoples R China;[3]corresponding author), Univ East Anglia, Norwich Med Sch, Dept Populat Hlth & Primary Care, Norwich NR4 7TJ, Norfolk, England.

年份：2017

卷号：85

起止页码：50

外文期刊名：JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

收录：;Scopus(收录号：2-s2.0-85012877269);WOS:【SCI-EXPANDED(收录号:WOS:000405256000010)】；

语种：英文

外文关键词：Systematic review; Methodological quality; Reporting quality; Risk of bias; Validity; Evidence-based medicine

摘要：Objectives: To compare the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China and those from the United States (USA). Study Design and Setting: From systematic reviews of randomized trials published in 2014 in English, we randomly selected 100 from China and 100 from the USA. The methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, and reporting quality assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) tool. Results: Compared with systematic reviews from the USA, those from China were more likely to be a meta-analysis, published in low impact journals, and a non-Cochrane review. The mean summary Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews score was 6.7 (95% confidence interval: 6.5, 7.0) for reviews from China and 6.6 (6.1, 7.1) for reviews from the USA, and the mean summary Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses score was 21.2 (20.7, 21.6) for reviews from China and 20.6 (19.9, 21.3) for reviews from the USA. The differences in summary quality scores between China and the USA were statistically nonsignificant after adjusting for multiple review factors. Conclusion: The overall methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China are similar to those from the USA, although the quality of systematic reviews from both countries could be further improved. (C) 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.