Skip to main content

Table 1 Bibliographical characteristics of 148 systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine

From: Methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey

Bibliographical characteristics

Resultsa

Cochrane review

2 (1.4)

Non-Cochrane review

146 (98.6)

An update of previous SR

12 (8.1)

 An update of previous Cochrane review

0 (0)

 An update of a previous non-Cochrane review

12 (8.1)

Publication year median (range)

2019 (2018-2020)

Publication journal impact factor median (range)

2.03 (0-7.76)

Number of review authors median (range)

6 (1-14)

Location of corresponding author

 Europe

2 (1.4)

 Asia

141 (95.3)

 Oceania

5 (3.4)

Total number of included primary studies

3022

Median number of included primary studies in each SR (range)

16 (2-121)

Total number of participants included in primary studies

288,351

Median number of participants included in primary studies (range)

1448.50 (100-11,732)

SRs reporting intervention harms

139 (93.9)

Result of the first primary outcome of the SR

 No significant difference between CHM intervention and control

12 (8.1)

 In favour of CHM intervention

32 (21.6)

 In favour of CHM intervention with reservation

104 (70.3)

Funding location of the SR

 Europe

6 (4.1)

 Asia

97 (65.5)

 Oceania

1 (0.7)

 Not reported

22 (14.9)

 No funding support

20 (13.5)

 Multiple funding locations

2 (1.3)

Source of funding, if reported

 For-profit

1 (0.8)

 Not-for-profit

105 (83.3)

 No funding support

20 (15.9)

SRs that searched English databases

145 (98.0)

SRs that searched non-English databases

139 (93.9)

Report year span of search

 Yes, reported both starting and ending years

111 (75.0)

 Partially, only reported starting years

29 (19.6)

 Not mentioned

8 (5.4)

Search terms reported for one or more electronic databases

 Topics/free text/keywords/MeSH

98 (66.2)

 Full Boolean

24 (16.2)

 Readers are referred elsewhere for full search strategy

21 (14.2)

 No research term

5 (3.4)

Eligibility criteria based on language of publication

 English only

1 (0.7)

 Language other than English

27 (18.2)

 English and other languages

16 (10.8)

 Not reported

104 (70.3)

Risk of bias assessment tools

 Cochrane risk of bias tool

130 (87.8)

 Jadad scale

14 (9.5)

 CONSORT 2010

1 (0.7)

 Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

1 (0.7)

 Tool not used

2 (1.4)

Included a PRISMA-like flow diagram

147 (99.3)

  1. Keys: SR systematic review, MeSH National Library of Medical Subject Headings, CHM Chinese herbal medicine, CONSORT CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
  2. aValues are n (%), or median (range)