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)