Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Nov;97(47):e13052.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013052.

Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of network meta-analyses in Chinese medicine

Fengwen Yang  1 , Hucheng Wang  1 , Jiahan Zou  2 , Xuemei Li  3 , Xinyao Jin  1 , Yawen Cao  2 , Jinhui Tian  4 , Long Ge  4 , Myeong Soo Lee  5 , Junhua Zhang  1
Affiliations
Review

Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of network meta-analyses in Chinese medicine

Fengwen Yang et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Nov.

Abstract

Background: An increasing number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) have been published recently, but the quality of them was lack of assessment. This study aims to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in TCM.

Methods: Six electronic databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) from inception to January 2018, were searched. NMAs of TCM were included. A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and the PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions (PRISMA-NMA) were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included NMAs.

Results: A total of 40 NMAs, including 2535 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were included. They were published between December 2012 and November 2017. The median score and interquartile range of methodological and reporting quality was 7 (6-8) and 22 (19.1-27.1). Serious methodological flaws existed in the following aspects: the status of publication (22.5%), a list of studies provided (0%), assessment of publication bias (37.5%), and conflicts of interest (12.5%). Several items need to be improved in reporting, especially for Protocol and registration (2.5%), Data items (22.5%), Risk of bias across studies (Methods section) (37.5%), Results of individual studies (27.5%), Risk of bias across studies (Results section) (40%), Results of additional analyses (35%), and Funding (15%).

Conclusions: The methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in TCM is moderate. Identified shortcomings of published NMAs should be taken into consideration in further trainings of authors and editors of NMAs in TCM. Future researchers should be encouraged to apply PRISMA-NMA, and a recognized tool for the assessment of NMA methodology was wanted.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

    1. Li S, Zhang B. Traditional Chinese medicine network pharmacology: theory, methodology and application. Chin J Nat Med 2013;11:110–20. - PubMed
    1. Zhang JH, Zhu Y, Fan XH, et al. Efficacy-oriented compatibility for component-based Chinese medicine. Acta Pharmacol Sin 2015;36:654–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:376–80. - PubMed
    1. Estellat C, Ravaud P. Lack of head-to-head trials and fair control arms: randomized controlled trials of biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:237–44. - PubMed
    1. Volpp KG, Das A. Comparative effectiveness-thinking beyond medication A versus medication B. N Engl J Med 2009;361:331–3. - PubMed

MeSH terms