The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China and those from the United States (USA).

Study design and setting: From systematic reviews of randomized trials published in 2014 in English, we randomly selected 100 from China and 100 from the USA. The methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, and reporting quality assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) tool.

Results: Compared with systematic reviews from the USA, those from China were more likely to be a meta-analysis, published in low-impact journals, and a non-Cochrane review. The mean summary Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews score was 6.7 (95% confidence interval: 6.5, 7.0) for reviews from China and 6.6 (6.1, 7.1) for reviews from the USA, and the mean summary Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses score was 21.2 (20.7, 21.6) for reviews from China and 20.6 (19.9, 21.3) for reviews from the USA. The differences in summary quality scores between China and the USA were statistically nonsignificant after adjusting for multiple review factors.

Conclusion: The overall methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China are similar to those from the USA, although the quality of systematic reviews from both countries could be further improved.

Keywords: Evidence-based medicine; Methodological quality; Reporting quality; Risk of bias; Systematic review; Validity.