Skip to main content

The assessment of reporting quality on systematic reviews or meta-analyses of diagnostic test published by Chinese authors

Date and Location




Sunday 22 September 2013 - 10:30 - 12:00


Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author

long ge

Contact person

Jinhui Tian
Abstract text
Background:The quality of reporting on diagnostic systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) published by Chinese authors is unclear. Objectives:The research aims to evaluate the quality of reporting on diagnostic SRs or MAs, using the PRISMA statement and determine whether there has been a improvement. Methods:According to the inclusion and exclusion standard, we searched Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of knowledge five databases to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic test. The searches were implemented in July 2012 and the cut off for inclusion of the SRs/MAs was Dec 31st 2011. The PRISMA statement was applied to assess reporting quality. Analyses were performed using Excel, SPSS17.0 and Meta Analyst soft. Results: A total of 312 studies were included. Fifteen diseases systems were involved. According to the PRISMA checklist, the score range of the study quality was 4 to 26, the average score was 17.14±4.18 (Table 1). Figure 1 showed that there has been some improvement in total score after the PRISMA publishing. The reporting quality of researches published by University is better than by Hospital. Funding theses compared with Non-funding theses, funding theses has been some improvement in total score. SRs/MAs werewritten by ≧ 3 authors and ≧ 2 cooperating unit compared with 1-2 authors and one unit, the reporting quality improves distinctly. The report quality of CSCD these and SCI these was better than Non-CSCD these and Non-SCI these. And the difference in total score to all stratified factors was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion: The number of diagnostic SRs/MAs is increasing annually. The quality of reporting has measurably improved over the previous years. Unfortunately, there are still many deficiencies in protocol and registration, search, risk of bias across studies, additional analyses. Future SRs/MAs should pay attention to these aspects.