Email Alert RSS
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Article Navigation >  Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital  > 2023  > 
WANG Ziyi, LU Cuncun, HUANG Jiayi, ZHANG Jinglei, SHANG Wenru, CUI Lu, LIU Wendi, DENG Xiuxiu, ZHAO Xiaoxiao, YANG Kehu, LI Xiuxia. Investigation and Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Prediction Models Published in Chinese Journals: Methodological and Reporting Quality[J]. Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital. doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2023-0418
Citation: WANG Ziyi, LU Cuncun, HUANG Jiayi, ZHANG Jinglei, SHANG Wenru, CUI Lu, LIU Wendi, DENG Xiuxiu, ZHAO Xiaoxiao, YANG Kehu, LI Xiuxia. Investigation and Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Prediction Models Published in Chinese Journals: Methodological and Reporting Quality[J]. Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital. doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2023-0418
shu

Investigation and Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Prediction Models Published in Chinese Journals: Methodological and Reporting Quality

doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2023-0418

  • 1 Evidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;

  • 2 Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;

  • 3 Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China;

  • 4 School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430062, China;

  • 5 Department of Gastroenterology, Chengdu Pidu District Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu 611730, China

Funds:

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (lzujbky-2021-ct06

  • Received Date: 2023-09-05
  • Accepted Date: 2023-10-18
    • Available Online: 2023-11-27
    Abstract
  • Objective To analyze the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of prediction models published in Chinese journals, with the aim of providing references for enhancing the quality of Chinese systematic reviews of prediction models. Methods Chinese systematic reviews of prediction models were electronically searched in CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM, and VIP databases from inception to July 20, 2023. Two independent reviewers screened literature, extracted data, and used the AMSTAR and PRISMA 2020 tools to assess methodological and reporting quality of the included reviews. Results A total of 55 systematic reviews published between 2015 and 2023 were included, with 12 of them being meta-analyses. These reviews encompassed a range of topics, with a primary focus on cardiovascular diseases, stroke, and diabetes. The identified systematic reviews exhibited obvious deficiencies in some areas, including items 1, 4, 5, 6, and 10 of AMSTAR, as well as items 7, 10a, 12, 13a-f, 14, 15, 16a-b, 17, 20b-d, 21, 22, 23d, 24a-c, 25 and 26 of PRISMA 2020. Furthermore, a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.58, P < 0.001) was observed between the methodological and reporting quality. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed: greater number of pages, more recent publications, and funding support were associated with higher methodological quality (P < 0.05). Similarly, greater number of pages, more recent publications, qualitative systematic reviews, and funding support were associated with higher reporting quality, but the number of authors showed a negative association (P < 0.05). Conclusions The current systematic reviews of prediction models published in Chinese journals require enhancement in both methodological and reporting quality.
    • FullText(HTML)
  • loading
    • References(1)
  • [1] 王昊玥, 王俊峰. 临床预测模型研究中的常见误区[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2023, 18: 758-769. [4] Hueting TA, Van Maaren MC, Hendriks MP, et al. The majority of 922 prediction models supporting breast cancer decision-making are at high risk of bias[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2022, 152: 238-247. [5] Kaiser I, Diehl K, Heppt MV, et al. Reporting Quality of Studies Developing and Validating Melanoma Prediction Models: An Assessment Based on the TRIPOD Statement[J]. Healthcare (Basel), 2022, 10: 238. [6] Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JPA, et al. How to Read a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Apply the Results to Patient Care: Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature[J]. JAMA, 2014, 312: 171-179. [7] Hoffmann TC, Oxman AD, Ioannidis JP, et al. Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions[J]. BMJ, 2017, 358. [8] Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 10. [9] 丁舒, 吴瑛, 陶香君, 等. 院内患者谵妄风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2015, 50: 7. [10] 靳育静, 高鹰, 张卿. Gail 模型在我国女性乳腺癌发病风险预测中的研究:系统综述与 Meta 分 析[J]. 现代肿瘤医学, 2022, 30: 7. [11] 梁诗雨, 李晨阳, 邵乐文. ICU 后综合征风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 中国护理管理, 2023, 23: 7. [12] 詹立睿, 张紫薇, 宋萍, 等. 2 型糖尿病患者低血糖风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 中华糖尿病杂 志, 2023, 15: 244-251. [13] Zeraatkar D, Bhasin A, Morassut RE, et al. Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study[J]. Am J Clin Nutr, 2021, 113: 1578-1592. [14] Grammatopoulos T, Hunter JWS, Munn Z, et al. Reporting quality and risk of bias in JBI systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of interventions: a methodological review protocol[J]. JBI Evid Synth, 2023, 21: 584-591. [15] Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62: 1013-1020. [16] Page MJ, Mckenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews[J]. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71. [17] Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews[J]. BMJ, 2021, 372: n160. [18] 徐俊峰, 安妮, 周为文, 等. 《中国循证医学杂志》 发表的干预类系统评价/Meta 分析方法学 质量评价[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13: 605-611. [19] 卢存存, 柯立鑫, 汤昊, 等. 中文期刊发表的氨甲环酸 Meta 分析的报告质量与方法学质量评价 [J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2021, 21: 7. [20] Li J, Tang L, Tang H, et al. Reporting quality of systematic review protocols of interventions for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review protocol[J]. Medical Data Mining, 2021, 4: 12. [21] Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation[J]. Anesth Analg, 2018, 126: 1763-1768. [22] Villa M, Le Pera M, Cassina T, et al. Reporting quality of abstracts from randomised controlled trials published in leading critical care nursing journals: a methodological quality review[J]. BMJ Open, 2023, 13: e070639. [23] Paez A. Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews[J]. J Evid Based Med, 2017, 10: 233-240. [24] Brozek JL, Canelo-Aybar C, Akl EA, et al. GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence-An overview in the context of health decision-making[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 129: 138-150. [25] 陈汐敏. 我国医学期刊论文发表偏倚的调查和思考[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019, 030: 715-720. [26] 王佳琳, 闫佰荟, 王璐, 等. 中文肿瘤学干预类 Meta 分析论文摘要报告质量评价分析[J], 2020, 29: 24-31. [27] 王朝宏, 张卫国, 杜媛鲲, 等. 中华超声影像学杂志 2010-2012 年基金项目论文统计分析与评价 [J]. 中华超声影像学杂志, 2013, 22: 2. [28] 王国豪, 靳英辉, 张磊, 等. 国内中医护理系统评价/Meta 分析的报告质量与方法学质量评价[J]. 护理学杂志, 2016, 31: 98-102. [29] Snell KIE, Levis B, Damen JAA, et al. Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis: checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (TRIPODSRMA)[J]. BMJ, 2023, 381: e073538. [30] Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both[J]. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008.

    Hendriksen JM, Geersing GJ, Moons KG, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic prediction models[J]. J Thromb Haemost, 2013, 11 Suppl 1: 129-141. [2] Meehan AJ, Lewis SJ, Fazel S, et al. Clinical prediction models in psychiatry: a systematic review of two decades of progress and challenges[J]. Mol Psychiatry, 2022, 27: 2700-2708. [3]
    • Relative Articles(0)
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索
    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article views (106) PDF downloads(14) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related
    Links: National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences(CAMS) AMLC Check CNKI Database CNKI Term Online Chinese General Practice
    Address：Room 302,Third Floor,Building 7, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Wangfujing, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100730, China
    Tel：010-69154261/4262
    E - mail：medj@pumch.cn
    mjpumch@126.com
    Copyright of website：Editorial Office of Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital

    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd    

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return