z-logo
Premium
Epidemiology characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on traditional Chinese medicine nursing interventions published in Chinese journals
Author(s) -
Yang Min,
Jiang Li,
Wang Aihong,
Xu Guihua
Publication year - 2017
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.12498
Subject(s) - systematic review , psychological intervention , medline , medicine , meta analysis , epidemiology , quality (philosophy) , alternative medicine , publication bias , family medicine , nursing , pathology , philosophy , epistemology , political science , law
To evaluate the epidemiological characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the traditional Chinese medicine nursing field published in Chinese journals. The number of systematic reviews in the traditional Chinese medicine nursing field has increased, but their epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics have not been assessed completely. We generated an overview of reviews using a narrative approach. Four Chinese databases were searched for systematic reviews from inception to December 2015. The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklists were adopted to evaluate reporting and methodological quality, respectively. A total of 73 eligible systematic reviews, published from 2005 to 2015, were included. The deficiencies in reporting characteristics mainly lay in the lack of structured abstract or protocol, incomplete reporting of search strategies, study selection, and risk of bias. The deficiencies in methodological quality were reflected in the lack of a priori design and conflict of interest, incomplete literature searches, and assessment of publication bias. The quality of the evaluated reviews was unsatisfactory; attention should be paid to the improvement of reporting and methodological quality in the conduct of systematic reviews.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here