title: Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in "evidence-based" Chinese journals.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The number of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) has increased dramatically in China over the past decades. However, evaluation of quality of reporting of systematic reviews published has not been undertaken. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs/MAs assessing efficacy and/or harms of clinical interventions published in "evidence-based" Chinese journals.
  
  
  METHODS
  Web-based database searches were conducted for the Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine, the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, the Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Pediatrics, and the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine. SRs/MAs assessing efficacy and/or harms of clinical interventions were included. The cut-off was December 31st 2011. The PRISMA statement was applied to assess the quality of reporting. Each item was assessed as follows: 'Yes' for total compliance, scored '1'; 'partial' for partial compliance, scored '0.5'; and 'No' for non-compliance, scored '0'. The review was considered to have major flaws if it received a total score of ≤15.0, minor flaws if it received a total score of 15.5 to 21.0, and minimal flaws if it received a total score 21.5 to 27.0. Odds ratios were used for binary variables, and the mean difference was used for continuous variables. Analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0 software.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Overall, 487 SRs/MAs were identified and assessed. The included reviews had medium quality with minor flaws based on PRISMA total scores (range: 8.5-26.0; mean: 19.6 ± 3.3). The stratified analysis showed that SRs/MAs with more than 3 authors, from a university, hospital + university cooperation, multiple affiliations (≥2), and funding have significantly higher quality of reporting of SRs/MAs; 58% of the included reviews were considered to have minor flaws (total score of 15.6 to 21.0). Only 9.6% of reviews were considered to have major flaws. Specific areas needing improvement in reporting include the abstract, protocol and registration, and characteristics of the search.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The reporting of SRs published in "evidence-based" Chinese journals is poor and needs to be improved in order for reviews to be useful. SR authors should use the PRISMA checklist to ensure complete and accurate accounts of their SRs.
authors.forename: Jin-Long
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: Long
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Ge
authors.forename: Ji-Chun
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Ma
authors.forename: Qiao-Ling
authors.initials: QL
authors.lastname: Zeng
authors.forename: Lu
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Yao
authors.forename: Ni
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: An
authors.forename: Jie-Xian
authors.initials: JX
authors.lastname: Ding
authors.forename: Yu-Hong
authors.initials: YH
authors.lastname: Gan
authors.affiliation: Evidence-Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, China. tianjh@lzu.edu.cn.
authors.forename: Jin-Hui
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Tian
mesh_terms: D002681:China; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D012196:Review Literature as Topic