Premium
Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in nursing field in C hina
Author(s) -
Jin Yinghui,
Ma Enting,
Gao Weijie,
Hua Wei,
Dou Haoying
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
international journal of nursing practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.62
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1440-172X
pISSN - 1322-7114
DOI - 10.1111/ijn.12123
Subject(s) - systematic review , meta analysis , medline , medicine , quality assessment , quality (philosophy) , nursing , pathology , political science , philosophy , external quality assessment , epistemology , law
The aim of this paper was to evaluate reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in the nursing field in C hina. Over the last decade, evidence‐based nursing has been gradually known and accepted by nurses in C hina, and the number of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses of nursing flied has steadily increased, but the quality of these reviews is unsatisfactory. The C hinese Journal Full‐Text Database, the C hinese Biomedicine Literature Database and the W anfang Database were searched for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in the nursing field, from inception through D ecember 2011. The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively. A total of 63 systematic reviews or meta‐analyses were identified. The deficiencies of methodological quality were mainly in literature searches, heterogeneity handling, recognition and assessment of publication bias. In addition, the deficiencies of reporting characteristics were reflected in incomplete reporting of literature search, quality assessment, risk of bias and results. Focusing on improving the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in the nursing field in C hina is urgently needed.