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

Cheung, Andy K. L.; Wong, Charlene H. L.; Ho, Leonard; Wu, Irene X. Y.; Ke, Fiona Y. T.; Chung, Vincent C. H.

doi:10.1186/s12906-022-03529-w

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies

Table 3 Overall methodological quality of the included systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine by bibliographical characteristics

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

Characteristics	Critically-low quality^a	Low quality^a	Moderate quality^a	High quality^a	P
Total	143 (96.6)	4 (2.7)	0 (0)	1 (0.7)
Cochrane Review					< 0.001^b
Yes	0 (0)	1 (50.0)	0 (0)	1 (50.0)
No	143 (97.9)	3 (2.1)	0 (0)	0 (0)
An update of a previous SR					0.797
Yes (Cochrane review)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Yes (non-Cochrane review)	12 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
No	131 (96.3)	4 (2.9)	0 (0)	1 (0.7)
Published year					0.384
2018	53 (96.4)	1 (1.8)	0 (0)	1 (1.8)
2019	72 (97.3)	2 (2.7)	0 (0)	0 (0)
2020	18 (94.7)	1 (5.3)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Location of corresponding author					0.985
Europe	1 (50.0)	1 (50.0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Asia	138 (97.9)	2 (1.4)	0 (0)	1 (0.7)
Oceania	4 (80.0)	1 (20.0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Reported intervention harms					0.847
Yes	134 (96.4)	4 (2.9)	0 (0)	1 (0.7)
No	9 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Result of the first primary outcome of the SR					0.233
No significant difference between CHM intervention and control	11 (91.7)	1 (8.3)	0 (0)	0 (0)
In favour of CHM intervention	30 (93.8)	1 (3.1)	0 (0)	1 (3.1)
In favour of CHM intervention with reservation	102 (98.1)	2 (1.9)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Funding location of the SR					0.020^b
Europe	2 (33.3)	3 (50.0)	0 (0)	1 (16.7)
Asia	97 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Oceania	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Not reported	22 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
No funding support	20 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Multiple funding locations	1 (50.0)	1 (50.0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Source of funding, if reported					0.133
For-profit	0 (0)	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Not-for-profit	101 (96.2)	3 (2.9)	0 (0)	1 (0.9)
No funding support	20 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Searched English databases					0.948
Yes	140 (96.6)	4 (2.8)	0 (0)	1 (0.7)
No	3 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Searched non-English databases					0.847
Yes	134 (96.4)	4 (2.9)	0 (0)	1 (0.7)
No	9 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Report year span of search					0.430
Yes	106 (95.5)	4 (3.6)	0 (0)	1 (0.9)
Partially	29 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Not mentioned	8 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Search terms reported for one or more electronic databases					0,500
Topics/free text/keywords/MeSH	97 (99.0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (1.0)
Full Boolean	22 (91.7)	2 (8.3)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Readers are referred elsewhere for full search strategy	20 (95.2)	1 (4.8)	0 (0)	0 (0)
No search term reported	4 (80.0)	1 (20.0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Eligibility criteria based on language of publication					0.393
English only	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Language other than English	26 (96.3)	1 (3.7)	0 (0)	0 (0)
English and other languages	14 (87.5)	1 (6.3)	0 (0)	1 (6.3)
Not reported	102 (98.1)	2 (1.9)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Risk of bias assessment tools					0.701
Cochrane risk of bias tool	125 (96.2)	4 (3.1)	0 (0)	1 (0.8)
Jadad scale	14 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
CONSORT 2010	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Tool not used	2 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Included a PRISMA-like flow diagram					0.983
Yes	142 (96.6)	4 (2.7)	0 (0)	1 (0.7)
No	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)

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
^aValues are n (% in subgroup)
^bP value of Kruskal-Wallis test was < 0.05

Back to article page

ISSN: 2662-7671

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmccomplementarymedicineandtherapies@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com