Methodological quality of systematic reviews in Chinese herbal medicine for diabetic kidney disease

ID: 

108

Session: 

Poster session 1

Date: 

Monday 24 October 2016 - 10:30 to 11:00

Location: 

All authors in correct order:

Zhang L1, Yang LH2, Qin XD3, Shergis JL4, Zhang AL4, Guo XF5, Mao W3, Liu XS3, Xue CC4
1 School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology/Department of Nephrology, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Australia/China
2 Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Research Service Group, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, China
3 Department of Nephrology, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, China
4 School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia
5 Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Research Service Group, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, China
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

La Zhang

Contact person:

Abstract text
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) summarize research and provide important knowledge for informing healthcare decisions. This approach has practical importance in the discipline of Chinese medicine (CM) because of the large number of clinical trials. The methodological quality of SRs is not often assessed, but is important considering its impact on practice and research.

Objectives: To appraise the methodological quality of SRs of Chinese herbal medicine for diabetic kidney disease (DKD).

Methods: We retrieved Published SRs from five English and four Chinese databases up to April 2015. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted methodological characteristics and assessed the quality of eligible SRs, and applied he AMSTAR tool (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews).

Results: Forty-seven SRs were identified and 45 were eligible for appraisal, including four SRs published in English. The average AMSTAR score was 3.73/11, and ranged from 1 to 8. Only three of 11 domains - assessing scientific quality, generating conclusions with quality consideration, and appropriately combining findings - showed requirements were met in > 50% of included SRs (Fig 1). None of the included SRs provided references for excluded studies, or addressed conflict of interest (COI) of included studies. Only four (8.9%) SRs mentioned prior protocol design but did not give registration details. The process of duplicate study selection and data extraction was merely mentioned in 18 (40%) SRs. A comprehensive search was conducted in 19 (42.2%) SRs but only 10 (22.2%) did not limit by publication status; 33 (73.3%) SRs did not provide sufficient information on studies’ characteristics, which compromised the transfer of results. Notably, 27 (60%) SRs did not assess publication bias appropriately and meta-analysis was misused in 18 (40%) SRs.

Conclusions: The overall methodological quality of SRs in the field of CM for DKD was unsatisfactory. Clinicians and policy makers should apply the SRs result critically in practice. Areas of prior design, comprehensive searching, sufficient information reporting and COI clarifying need to be improved.

Attachments: