国内公共卫生研究领域系统评价/Meta分析的质量评价

目的评价国内发表的公共卫生领域6种重要疾病防治的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学和发表质量。方法计算机检索中国期刊全文数据库、万方医药期刊数据库、维普中文科技期刊全文数据库及中国生物医学文献数据库,检索时间从建库至2010年6月,查找涉及肿瘤、脑血管疾病、心血管疾病、乙肝、结核病以及艾滋病等6种重要疾病防治的系统评价或Meta分析的中文文献,由两名研究人员独立筛查文献,并采用OQAQ和PRISMA评价量表对文献的方法学质量和发表质量进行评价,而后交叉核对,如遇分歧讨论解决。结果共纳入139篇文献,包括32篇系统评价,107篇Meta分析,文献方法学质量评分最高6.5分,最低1.5分,平均4.66±0.92分。无一篇文献符合全部9个条目的要求,主要存在资料检索不全面、资料的选择偏倚控制不足、对纳入的原始研究缺乏严格的质量评价等问题。报告质量评分平均为15.28±2.91分,其主要问题表现在摘要、资料收集及分析方法、偏倚控制及总结等方面报道不全面。结论目前国内公卫研究领域已发表的肿瘤、心脑血管疾病等6种重要疾病防治的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量及报告质量尚存在不同程度的问题,需要进一步提高方法学水平和规范发表。     

脑胶质瘤干预类系统评价/Meta分析的方法学和报告质量评价

目的系统评价全世界脑胶质瘤干预类系统评价/Meta分析（SR/MA）的方法学和报告质量。方法计算机检索Pub Med、EMbase、h e Cochrane Library、CNKI、CBM等数据库,纳入脑胶质瘤干预类SR/MA,检索时限截至2013年7月。由2位研究者独立筛选文献,而后采用AMSTAR和PRISMA清单对纳入研究的方法学与报告质量进行评价与分析。结果共纳入51个SR/MA。结果显示：纳入研究中方法学质量存在的主要问题有无研究设计方案、检索策略不全面、纳入研究出版物形式局限、未评价文章发表偏倚及未说明相关利益冲突;纳入研究的报告质量存在的主要问题是检索策略的报告不规范、纳入研究质量和偏倚风险报道不全面和研究结果表述不全（部分缺乏森林图、综合结果的估计值和可信区间、异质性检验结果）。结论脑胶质瘤干预类SR/MA的方法学质量和报告质量还存在不同程度的问题,该领域研究者应提高SR/MA制作的科学性和规范性,并遵循PRISMA进行报告。     

国内康复领域2018~2020年系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量评价

目的：评价国内康复领域2018～2020年发表的系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量。方法：检索中国知网和万方数据库,纳入《中国康复医学杂志》、《中华物理医学与康复杂志》、《中国康复理论与实践》、《中国康复》、《康复学报》自2018年1月～2020年12月期间发表的系统评价/Meta分析文章。分别采用PRISMA 2009清单、PRISMA-NMA量表和SWiM报告指南对Meta分析、网状Meta分析和定性系统评价的报告质量进行评价。结果：共纳入88篇文献（含85篇Meta分析、2篇网状Meta分析和1篇定性系统评价）。PRISMA清单结果显示Meta分析的报告质量平均为21.13±1.83分,其中报告相对规范（21.5～27分）的有41篇,报告有一定缺陷(15.5～21分)的有44 篇。报告缺陷主要集中在结构式摘要不完整、检索不规范、缺少研究方案和注册号以及未能进行合理的发表偏倚及其他分析。结论：国内康复领域已发表的系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量仍有待提高,建议研究者在撰写此类文章时应遵循相应的报告规范,促进我国循证康复的进一步发展。     

2018年我国护理期刊刊载Meta分析与系统评价文献规范化报告质量分析

[目的]对我国护理期刊2018年发表的Meta分析与系统评价文献进行规范性报告分析。[方法]依据Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials(CONSORT)声明、A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews(AMSTAR)和Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis(PRISMA)声明的相关内容和条目制定评价标准,对2018年我国护理期刊刊载Meta分析与系统评价文献的方法和结果部分的报告质量进行评价,方法部分包括方案与注册、检索策略、信息来源、检索词、检索时间、纳入标准、排除标准、文献筛选方法、数据提取方法、质量评价方法、统计学方法、概括效应指标、异质性检验方法、研究偏倚、其他分析,结果部分包括检索流程、文献选择、文献基本特征、文献质量评价结果、结果分析(单个研究的结果与结果的综合)、偏倚分析(研究内部偏倚与研究间偏倚)、其他分析。[结果]初步检索出相关文献910篇,导入NoteExpress进行查重后余325篇,阅读题目和摘要后进行初筛,仔细阅读每篇文献后,最终获取259篇文献。其中Meta分析238篇,质性研究的系统评价9篇,系统评价再评价4篇,其他8篇。238篇Meta分析中方法部分大多数文献均报告了数据库来源、纳入标准、排除标准、纳入文献的质量评价方法、统计学方法,但是没有发现文献报告方案注册情况,仅130篇文献报告了具体检索策略,181篇随机对照实验采用了Cochrane协作网制定的风险偏倚评估工具,18篇非随机对照试验采用了纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS);结果部分大部分文献均报告了纳入文献的基本特征、质量评价结果与Meta分析结果,138篇文献报告了筛选流程图,质量评价结果中仅140篇文献对纳入文献进行定级,82篇文献报告了偏倚情况。[结论]国内护理领域系统评价的文献报告较规范,方法和结果部分的关键项目均有报告,但在文献检索策略、纳入研究的质量评价与偏倚分析、结果部分的异质性分析等方面仍然不够规范。     

我国护理期刊系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量评价

目的评价国内护理学领域发表的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量,为护理学领域相关研究提供指导。方法检索中国生物医学文献数据库、中国学术文献网络出版总库和中国科技期刊数据库,检索时间为各数据库建库到2013年8月,收集护理期刊上发表的系统评价及Meta分析,按照OQAQ量表中的10条评价项目对纳入文献逐一进行评价。结果共纳入74篇文献,其方法学质量评分为（2.92±1.63）分,分别有4.1%、8.1%、31.1%、43.2%、29.7%、55.4%、16.2%、37.8%、60.8%的研究充分报告了检索方法、检索足够全面、重复筛选、质量评价标准、数据支持其结论、提供了纳入排除清单、恰当地评价了文献、描述了数据合并方法、对结局数据进行了恰当的合并分析。结论护理学领域的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量整体较低,在检索策略、纳入排除标准、质量评价及数据分析方面表现尤其突出,研究者应进行严格的方法学培训。     

对系统评价/Meta分析报告规范的系统评价

目的全面收集系统评价/Meta分析的报告规范并对其进行评价,为系统评价/Meta分析的规范化发表及传播提供帮助。方法电子检索Ovid MEDLINE(1996～2010)及EMbase(截至2010年4月),纳入系统评价/Meta分析报告规范的文献,检索词包括guideline、report、systematic reviews、meta-analyses。通过阅读文题及摘要,排除无明显相关性的文献(针对具体疾病的系统评价,某一疾病的临床指南,以及仅讨论如何进行系统评价而未关注如何进行系统评价的报道等),而后进一步阅读全文,从纳入文献中提取如何报告系统评价/Meta分析的部分,并据其纳入原始研究设计的类型如随机对照试验、观察性研究、诊断性试验进行分类。结果初检获得285篇文献,最终纳入26篇文献。其中随机对照试验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范有8篇,非随机对照试验(观察性研究)的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范2篇,诊断性试验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范0篇,动物实验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范1篇,针对系统评价/Meta分析的检索策略的报告规范2篇,评估系统评价/Meta分析质量的5篇,研究报告规范对系统评价/Meta分析质量影响的6篇。有2个指南更新。结论目前系统评价/Meta分析报告规范数量较多,其中QUOROM及其更新版本PRISMA被众多期刊广泛采纳。报告规范有利于提高系统评价和Meta分析的报告质量,尚需制定针对具体专业系统评价/Meta分析的报告规范。     

国内动物实验系统评价/Meta分析研究的现状分析

目的对国内发表的动物实验系统评价的研究现状及存在的问题进行全面分析,为今后的研究提供参考依据。方法计算机检索CNKI和Wan Fang Data数据库,纳入国内发表的动物实验系统评价/Meta分析研究,不限制动物种属,检索时限均为建库截至2014年3月。由两位研究者按纳入与排除标准筛选文献、提取资料,对纳入研究的特征进行描述性分析。结果最终纳入18篇动物实验的系统评价,发表于13种期刊上,其中14篇(77.8%)被引次数为零,8篇(44.4%)未对纳入研究的类型进行说明。在方法学上,11篇(61.1%)未对纳入研究的质量和发表偏倚进行评价,4篇(22.2%)仅检索了中文数据库,15篇(83.3%)未提供文献筛选流程图。结论国内发表的动物实验系统评价数量少,被引率低,在方法学上存在较多问题。因此,有必要通过普及系统评价知识、加强方法学培训及在相关期刊"稿约"中尽早引入动物实验系统评价报告规范,来提高动物实验系统评价的方法和报告质量,促进其成果的转化和利用。     

近5年我国护理领域干预性研究系统评价的方法学质量分析

目的:评价近5年我国护理核心期刊发表的干预性研究系统评价的方法学质量,为研究者及审稿人规范制作及审阅系统评价提供参考。方法:在中国知网和万方数据库中,检索2015-2019年发表在我国护理核心期刊的干预性研究系统评价,描述研究涉及的主题,并采用新版系统评价方法学质量评价工具(AMSTAR 2)进行评价。结果:共纳入文献507篇,其中80.9%可信度为极低级。主要问题包括未提及前期研究方案(98.8%)、发表偏倚分析与讨论不充分(71.4%)、文献检索策略不全面(55.8%)、PICO各要素界定不具体(41.4%)等。结论:纳入的系统评价方法学质量总体偏低,亟待通过研究者和审稿人共同努力,提升系统评价计划书的注册、检索策略的全面性和透明性、发表偏倚的考虑等方面的质量,为实践者提供更为可靠的决策依据。     

芪参益气滴丸治疗慢性心力衰竭的系统评价再评价

目的 对芪参益气滴丸治疗慢性心力衰竭的系统评价/Meta分析（SRs/MAs）进行再评价,以评估该领域研究质量和临床证据现状。方法 计算机检索PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、CNKI、WanFang Data和CBM数据库,搜集与研究目的相关的SRs/MAs,检索时限均为建库至2022年12月31日。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料,使用AMSTAR-2进行方法学质量评价,使用ROBIS评价偏倚风险,使用PRISMA进行报告质量评价,最后采用GRADE系统进行证据质量分级。结果 最终纳入17个SRs/MAs。但纳入SRs/MAs的方法学质量、报告质量、偏倚风险评价结果及结局指标的证据等级均存在缺陷。根据AMSTAR-2评估结果,SRs/MAs的方法学质量以极低级为主;根据ROBIS评价结果,只有少数SRs/MAs被评估为低偏倚风险;PRISMA评价结果表明纳入的24项研究的报告质量较完整;根据GRADE证据分级结果,84个结局指标中证据质量为低级和极低级占比94%,局限性是导致其降级的主要因素,其次是发表偏倚、不一致性、不精...     

中文护理专业病例对照研究质量的评价

目的 对发表在护理核心期刊、护理非核心期刊和综合性医学期刊上的中文护理专业病例对照研究文献的方法学质量和报告质量进行系统评价.方法 计算机检索中文护理专业病例对照研究的文献,并采用Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)和Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology(STROBE)量表对文献进行方法学和报告质量评价.结果 检索得到3 579篇文献,根据纳入与排除标准共纳入94篇文献;纳入文献的NOS量表评分为(4.86±1.33)分,STROBE量表评分为(16.11±2.41)分;发表在护理核心期刊上、护理非核心期刊上和综合性医学期刊上的病例对照研究的方法学质量和报告质量比较差异无统计学意义.结论 1992年至2013年,在护理核心期刊、护理非核心期刊及综合医学期刊上发表的中文护理专业病例对照研究文献数量呈逐年增长趋势,且文献涉及的研究领域广泛.但这些研究在方法学和报告质量方面存在着不同程度的缺陷.     

Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in nursing field in China

The aim of this paper was to evaluate reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in the nursing field in China. Over the last decade, evidence‐based nursing has been gradually known and accepted by nurses in China, and the number of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses of nursing flied has steadily increased, but the quality of these reviews is unsatisfactory. The Chinese Journal Full‐Text Database, the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database and the Wanfang Database were searched for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in the nursing field, from inception through December 2011. The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively. A total of 63 systematic reviews or meta‐analyses were identified. The deficiencies of methodological quality were mainly in literature searches, heterogeneity handling, recognition and assessment of publication bias. In addition, the deficiencies of reporting characteristics were reflected in incomplete reporting of literature search, quality assessment, risk of bias and results. Focusing on improving the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta‐analyses in the nursing field in China is urgently needed.     

Epidemiology characteristics,reporting characteristics,and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on traditional Chinese medicine nursing interventions published in Chinese journals

To evaluate the epidemiological characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the traditional Chinese medicine nursing field published in Chinese journals. The number of systematic reviews in the traditional Chinese medicine nursing field has increased, but their epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics have not been assessed completely. We generated an overview of reviews using a narrative approach. Four Chinese databases were searched for systematic reviews from inception to December 2015. The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklists were adopted to evaluate reporting and methodological quality, respectively. A total of 73 eligible systematic reviews, published from 2005 to 2015, were included. The deficiencies in reporting characteristics mainly lay in the lack of structured abstract or protocol, incomplete reporting of search strategies, study selection, and risk of bias. The deficiencies in methodological quality were reflected in the lack of a priori design and conflict of interest, incomplete literature searches, and assessment of publication bias. The quality of the evaluated reviews was unsatisfactory; attention should be paid to the improvement of reporting and methodological quality in the conduct of systematic reviews.     

Epidemiology,methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of nursing interventions published in China

The importance of systematic reviews (SRs) of nursing interventions' impact on practice makes their methodological quality and reporting characteristics especially important as it directly influence their utility for clinicians, patients and policy makers.The study aims to assess the methodological quality and reporting characteristics of SRs of nursing interventions in Chinese nursing journals. Three Chinese databases were searched for SRs of nursing interventions from inception to October 2011. The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) statements were used to assess methodological quality and reporting characteristics. Seventy‐four SRs were included. The proportion of SRs complying with AMSTAR checklist items ranged from 0% to 82.4%. No SRs reported an ‘a priori’ design or conflict of interest. Only four items were found to be reported in more than 50% of the SRs: a list of included and excluded studies, the scientific quality of included studies, the appropriate use of methods to combine findings, and formulating conclusions appropriately. The majority of SRs of nursing interventions in China had major methodological and reporting flaws that limited their value to guide decisions. Chinese authors and journals should adopt and keep up with the AMSTAR and PRISMA statements to improve the quality of SRs in this field.     

《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价／Meta分析报告质量评价

目的评价《中国循证医学杂志》公开发表的干预类系统评价／Meta分析的报告质量,并分析其影响因素。方法对《中国循证医学杂志》从创刊至2011年底所发表的干预类系统评价／Meta分析进行检索。采用PRISMA清单评价和分析所有纳入文献,按照PRISMA清单各条目的符合程度由高到低分别评为“1分”、“0．5分”、“0分”。将所获数据录入Excle软件,并使用Meta—Analyst软件进行统计分析。结果共纳入干预类系统评价／Meta分析379篇,发表数量总体呈逐年上升之势。PRISMA清单平均评分19．97±3．15分（8．5-26分）。其中25篇（6．60％）评分为21—27分,认为报告相对完全;226篇（59．63％）评分为15～21分,认为报告存在缺陷;128篇（33．77％）评分为15分以下,认为有严重的信息缺失。分层分析结果显示：PRISMA的发布、有基金资助可以提高系统评价／Meta分析的报告质量（P〈0．05）;作者数≥3人、作者单位性质为大学和单位数≥2个有改善系统评价／Meta分析报告质量的趋势,但影响不具统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论《中国循证医学杂志》所发表的干预类系统评价／Meta分析的报告质量有待提高,影响报告质量的主要因素有方案和注册、研究间偏倚、其他分析以及资金支持等,应加以重视。合理利用PRISMA将有助于提升系统评价／Meta分析的报告质量。     

《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价／Meta分析方法学质量评价

目的分析《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价／Meta分析的方法学质量及其影响闲索,以期为改辫阳内卜预类系统＂价／Meta分析的方法学质量提供依据。方法检索《中国循证医学杂志》从创刊至2011午底所发表的干预类系统评价／Meta分析,采用AMSTAR量表对纳入研究的方法学质量进行评价。数据录入采用Excel软什．统计分析采用Meta—Analyst软件。结果共纳入干预类系统评价／Meta分析379篇．其AMSTAR量表平均得分6．15±1．35分（1．5～9．5分）：纳入研究的发表年代、是否有基金资助、作者数、作者单位性质和作者单位数仅对AMSTAR艟表部分条日评分有影响。2008年及其以后发表的系统评价／Meta分析的AMSTAR总分高于2008年以11订（P=0．02）,但提高程度有限,作者数≥3人的系统评价／Meta分析AMSTAR总分高于≤2人者（P=O．04）。结论《中国循证医学杂志》发表的十预类系统评价／Meta分析方法学质量参差不齐,虽AMSTAR发布后方法学质艟仃所改蛑,但小叫显,需进一步提高办法学质量。     

Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions published in chinese journals

Abstract Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture have become increasingly popular in China in recent years and have been published in large numbers. This review provides the first examination of epidemiological characteristics of these SRs as well as compliance with the PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. Objectives: The study objectives were to examine epidemiological and reporting characteristics as well as methodological quality of SRs of acupuncture published in Chinese journals. Methods: Four (4) Chinese databases were searched (CBM, CSJD, CJFD, and Wanfang Database) for SRs of Traditional Chinese Medicine, from January 1978 through to December 2010. Data were extracted into Excel spreadsheets. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively. Results: A total of 88 SRs were identified; none of the reviews had been updated. Less than one third (27.3%) were written by clinicians and one third (35.2%) were reported in specialty journals. The impact factor of 53.4% of the journals published was 0. Information retrieval was not comprehensive in more than half (59.1%) of the reviews. Less than half (36.4%) reported assessing for publication bias. Though 97.7% of the reviews used the term "systematic review" or "meta-analysis" in the title, no reviews reported a protocol and none were updated even after they had been published after 2 or more years. Conclusions: Although many SRs of acupuncture interventions have been published in Chinese journals, the reporting quality is troubling. Thus, the most urgent strategy is to focus on increasing the standard of SRs of acupuncture interventions, rather than continuing to publish them in great quantity.     

近5年中国科学引文数据库护理干预性系统评价/Meta分析报告质量分析

目的 评价近5年中国科学引文数据库收录的护理期刊发表的干预性系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量,以期规范其研究过程和报告方法,提升系统评价/Meta分析质量。方法 计算机检索CNKI、VIP、CBM和Wanfang数据库,搜集中国科学引文数据库收录的护理期刊发表的干预性系统评价/Meta分析研究,检索时限为2015年1月—2020年6月。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料,采用系统评价和Meta分析优先报告的条目进行报告质量评价;采用Office Excel 2019、Stata 15.0软件对相关数据进行统计和分析。结果 共纳入干预性系统评价/Meta分析176篇,其PRISMA评分为14.5~24.5分（20.17±2.00）,其中有1篇研究评分≤15分,有严重信息缺失;122篇评分为15~21分,存在一定报告缺陷;53篇评分为21~27分,报告相对完全。报告质量不足主要表现为结构式摘要（0/176）,方案和注册（0/176）,检索策略（55/176）,研究间偏倚（26/176）和资金支持（0/176）报告不全面。亚组分析结果显示：有基金资助、作者单位性质为医院和单位数为1个可明显提高系统评价/Meta分析报告质量（P<0.05）;作者人数对系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量影响不显著（P>0.05）。结论 目前,我国护理领域干预性系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量差异较大。因此,有必要采取相应的措施,加大对PRISMA的宣传和普及,推动其在护理期刊稿约中的引用;研究人员应严格遵守PRISMA相关条目,规范、详细地进行报告;护理期刊的编辑和审稿人在同行评审阶段也要严格遵循PRISMA的指导方针,以期提高系统评价/Meta分析的质量。     

Systematic evaluation and re-evaluation of buyang huanwu decoction in treating ischemic stroke

BackgroundThe Buyang Huanwu Decoction (BYHWD) originated from Wang Qingren’s “Yi Lin Gai Cuo”. It has the effect of tonifying qi and activating blood circulation and dredging collaterals which is recommended for the treatment of Ischemic stroke in China. In recent years, there have been many systematic reviews of Ischemic stroke treated by BYHWD assessing the efficacy of BYHWD in the treatment of Ischemic stroke in the acute, convalescent and sequelae stages. Because of the different methods of analysis, the quality and quality of the evidence obtained in these systematic reviews is different, so a systematic re-evaluation was needed to comprehensively evaluate the strength of these studies.MethodsSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of Ischemic stroke treated by BYHWD were identified through the Web of Science, PubMed, CNKI, Weipu, and Wanfang databases. The included studies were selected for literature screening, methodological quality evaluation, and evidence level evaluation by two investigators. The methodological quality was evaluated by the 2020 PRISMA guidelines, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale, and the evidence quality was evaluated by the GRADE criteria.ResultsOverall, 12 studies involving 28,594 patients between 2006–2021 were included in this analysis. The methodological quality evaluation based on 2020 PRISMA guidelines results showed that there were many weaknesses in registration and protocol, support, competing interests, competing interests and availability of data, code and other materials. The AMSTAR scale evaluation results showed that the 12 studies were very low quality. The results of the GRADE criteria evaluation showed that the quality of the evidence was scattered, with mainly low-quality evidence.ConclusionThe methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of BYHWD in treating Ischemic stroke was generally poor, and the quality of evidence was generally low.     

Methodology and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine

CONTEXT: Good systematic reviews/meta-analyses are important sources of information for clinicians, patients, government officials, and other decision makers. Now, there is an increasing number of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Thus, it is necessary to assess the quality of these reviews. OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodology and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of TCM published in paper-based journals in China. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed to identify the maximum possible number of reviews on the prevention and cure researches in TCM. Two assessors (Junhua and Hongcai) independently extracted data and put them into a Microsoft Access database for analysis. Two assessment tools were used: (1) the Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ); and (2) the Quality of Reporting of Meta analysis (QUOROM). RESULTS: One hundred and seven papers (107) were identified: 71 reviews called "systematic reviews" and 36 called "meta-analyses." More than half of all the reviews had methodological and reporting flaws that could have influenced the reviews' validity. The deficiencies were mainly in literature searches, characteristics of included and excluded studies reported, primary trials' quality assessment, and data merging. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology and reporting quality are poor in both systematic reviews and meta-analysis reviews of TCM published in paper-based journals in China. We should respect the need for high-quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and do these according to specification.