title: Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field in China.
abstract: The aim of this paper was to evaluate reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in the nursing field in China. Over the last decade, evidence-based nursing has been gradually known and accepted by nurses in China, and the number of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing flied has steadily increased, but the quality of these reviews is unsatisfactory. The Chinese Journal Full-Text Database, the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database and the Wanfang Database were searched for systematic reviews or meta-analyses in the nursing field, from inception through December 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 China is urgently needed.
authors.affiliation: Nursing School of Tianjin, University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, TianJin, China.
authors.forename: Ying-hui
authors.initials: YH
authors.lastname: Jin
authors.forename: En-ting
authors.initials: ET
authors.lastname: Ma
authors.forename: Wei-jie
authors.initials: WJ
authors.lastname: Gao
authors.forename: Wei
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Hua
authors.forename: Hao-ying
authors.initials: HY
authors.lastname: Dou
mesh_terms: D002681:China; D009736:Nursing Process
keywords: China; meta-analysis; nursing; quality assessment; systematic review