TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality of meta-analysis in nursing fields
T2 - An exploration based on the JBI guidelines
AU - Hou, Yuying
AU - Tian, Jinhui
AU - Zhang, Jun
AU - Yun, Rongrong
AU - Zhang, Zhigang
AU - Chen, Kee Hsin
AU - Zhang, Caiyun
AU - Wang, Bo
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Hou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2017/5/23
Y1 - 2017/5/23
N2 - Background Meta-analysis is often regarded as one of the best sources of evidence for clinical nurses due to its rigorous design and scientific reflection of the true results of nursing interventions. The quality of a meta-analysis is critical to the work of clinical decision-makers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to use the JBI guidelines to summarize the quality of RCTbased meta-analyses of reports published in domestic nursing professional journals, with a view to standardizing the research process and reporting methods. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search for RCT-based meta-analyses published in Chinese professional nursing journals, from their inception to December 31, 2015, using bibliographic databases (e.g. CNKI, WanFang Database). March 1, 2017, supplementary search 2016 literature. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion by two independent reviewers using pre-specified eligibility criteria. We evaluated the quality of reporting of the included meta-analyses using the systematic review literature reporting specification of JBI. Analyses were performed using Excel and STATA 12.0 software. Results Three hundred and twenty-two meta-analyses were included. According to the JBI guidelines, the overall quality of the meta-analysis report was poor. The quality of core journal reports and the implementation of retrieval were better than those of non-core journals. The nature of the authors and the availability of funding support had no significant impact on the quality of the meta-analyses. Multi-unit and multi-author collaboration can help improve the quality of meta-analyses with significant impact.
AB - Background Meta-analysis is often regarded as one of the best sources of evidence for clinical nurses due to its rigorous design and scientific reflection of the true results of nursing interventions. The quality of a meta-analysis is critical to the work of clinical decision-makers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to use the JBI guidelines to summarize the quality of RCTbased meta-analyses of reports published in domestic nursing professional journals, with a view to standardizing the research process and reporting methods. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search for RCT-based meta-analyses published in Chinese professional nursing journals, from their inception to December 31, 2015, using bibliographic databases (e.g. CNKI, WanFang Database). March 1, 2017, supplementary search 2016 literature. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion by two independent reviewers using pre-specified eligibility criteria. We evaluated the quality of reporting of the included meta-analyses using the systematic review literature reporting specification of JBI. Analyses were performed using Excel and STATA 12.0 software. Results Three hundred and twenty-two meta-analyses were included. According to the JBI guidelines, the overall quality of the meta-analysis report was poor. The quality of core journal reports and the implementation of retrieval were better than those of non-core journals. The nature of the authors and the availability of funding support had no significant impact on the quality of the meta-analyses. Multi-unit and multi-author collaboration can help improve the quality of meta-analyses with significant impact.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019644349&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019644349&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0177648
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0177648
M3 - Article
C2 - 28542330
AN - SCOPUS:85019644349
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 12
JO - PLoS One
JF - PLoS One
IS - 5
M1 - e0177648
ER -