Skip to main content

Table 1 The results of reporting quality assessment (n = 487)

From: Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals

PRISMA items Yes Partial No
   n (%) 95% CI n (%) 95% CI n (%) 95% CI
Title 1. Title 476 (98) 96–99 1 (0) 1–1 10 (2) 1–4
Abstract 2. Structured summary 256 (53) 48–57 226 (46) 42–51 5 (1) 0–2
Introduction 3. Rational 429 (88) 85–91 55 (11) 9–14 3 (1) 0–2
4. Objective 335 (69) 65–73 143 (29) 26–34 9 (2) 1–4
Methods 5. Protocol and registration 2 (0) 0–2 58 (12) 9–15 427 (88) 85–90
6. Eligibility criteria 447 (92) 89–94 39 (8) 6–11 1 (0) 1–1
7. Information sources 480 (99) 97–100 6 (1) 0–23 1 (0) 0–1
8. Search 263 (54) 50–59 182 (37) 33–41 42 (9) 6–12
9. Study selection 241 (50) 45–54 72 (15) 12–18 174 (36) 32–40
10. Data collection process 334 (69) 64–73 45 (9) 7–12 108 (22) 19–26
11. Data items 203 (42) 37–46 25 (5) 4–8 259 (53) 49–58
12. Risk of bias in individual studies 436 (90) 87–92 17 (4) 2–6 34 (7) 5–10
13. Summary measures 444 (91) 88–93 7 (1) 0–3 36 (7) 5–10
14. Synthesis of results 453 (93) 90–95 7 (1) 0–3 27 (6) 4–8
15. Risk of bias across studies 161 (33) 29–37 74 (15) 12–19 252 (52) 47–56
16. Additional analyses 253 (52) 48–56 44 (9) 7–12 190 (39) 35–43
Results 17. Study selection 356 (73) 69–77 70 (14) 12–18 61 (13) 10–16
18. Study characteristics 445 (91) 89–94 21 (4) 3–7 21 (4) 3–7
19. Risk of bias with studies 423 (87) 84–90 31 (6) 5–9 33 (7) 5–9
20. Results of individual studies 442 (91) 88–93 24 (5) 3–7 21 (4) 3–7
21. Synthesis of results 442 (91) 88–93 23 (5) 3–7 22 (5) 3–7
22. Risk of bias across studies 109 (22) 19–26 94 (19) 16–23 284 (58) 54–63
23. Additional analyses 142 (29) 25–33 56 (11) 9–15 289 (59) 55–64
Discussion 24. Summary of evidence 440 (90) 87–93 38 (8) 6–11 9 (2) 1–4
25. Limitations 385 (79) 75–83 42 (9) 6–12 60 (12) 10–16
26. Conclusions 394 (81) 77–84 85 (18) 14–21 8 (2) 0–3
Funding 27. Funding 119 (24) 21–28 41 (8) 6–11 327 (67) 63–71
Total score Scope 8.5–26.0
  ±SD 19.60 ± 3.33