| Background: Systematic review(SR)as a secondary research method can synthesize existing research evidence to draw reliable conclusions and provide valuable information for clinicians,researchers,and policymakers.Cochrane SRs often considered to be the highest quality SRs due to their rigorous formulation methods.As the number of SRs published increases,there are more and more SRs focus on the same or similar questions,which lead to a waste of research resources to some extent.Prioritizing research questions means prioritizing important questions that need to be addressed,increasing the likelihood of using the best available evidence for clinical decisions and health policy decisions,promoting the optimal allocation of scarce research resources,and maximizing the use of health research resources.Foreign scholars have conducted relevant studies on the problem of overlapping SRs,but there are no studies in China have yet focused on the problem of overlapping studies,especially the problem of overlap between Chinese published SRs and Cochrane SRs,and there are still research gaps in the current status of priority setting tools for SRs in China.Objectives:(1)To investigate the extent of overlap between Chinese SRs and Cochrane SRs in the field of stroke.(2)To compare the differences between Chinese SRs and Cochrane SRs in methodological quality and reporting quality,identify factors related to the quality of SRs,and provide suggestions for improving the overall quality of Chinese SRs.(3)To summarize and organize existing priority setting tools for SRs,so that researchers in China can choose to use them and provide references for developing a SR priority setting tool applicable to China.Methods:(1)Bibliometrics: Systematically searched China national knowledge infrastructure(CNKI),wanfang data,Sino Med and Cochrane Library to include Chinese SRs and Cochrane SRs in the field of stroke published from 2012-2022.By extracting P(Population),I(Intervention),C(Comparison),O(Outcome)of all interventional SRs in the stroke field to analyze the extent of overlap of SRs.The basic information and research information of SRs with overlapping PICOs were further extracted to analyze the characteristics of overlapping SRs.(2)Quality assessment: A group of two researchers independently performed methodological quality assessment and reporting quality assessment of overlapping SRs using AMSTAR 2(A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews)and PRISMA 2020(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis),descriptive analysis of assessment results,compared the differences between two groups of results with chi-square tests,and multiple linear regression analysis of factors related to literature quality.(3)Crossectional study: Systematically searched Pub Med,Web of Science,Embase,CNKI,Wanfang data,Sino Med,and also searched baidu academic and references of included literatures as a supplementary search,included all priority setting tools related to SRs at home and abroad,summarized strengths and weaknesses of tools,and conduct descriptive analysis.Results:(1)After systematic search and literature screening,a total of 1192 Chinese SRs and 111 Cochrane SRs in the field of stroke were included.After extracting PICOs from these 1303 SRs for overlapping analysis,it was found that 128 of Chinese SRs overlap to 29(26.1%)of the 111 Cochrane SRs.Most(127/128,99.2%)Chinese SRs were published later than Cochrane SRs.The year of publication of overlapping SRs shows a trend of increasing year by year.(2)According to AMSTAR 2 results,128 Chinese SRs were of very low overall quality,and of the 29 Cochrane SRs,2 were of high quality,4 were of moderate quality,12 were of low quality,and 11 were of very low quality.The reporting of AMSTAR 2 items in the Cochrane SRs were better than Chinese SRs(P<0.05).In terms of overall quality rating,the overall quality rating of the Cochrane SRs was higher than that of the Chinese SRs(P<0.001).The overall PRISMA 2020 score of Chinese SRs ranges from8 to 30,with a median of 20.5.The overall PRISMA 2020 score of the Cochrane SRs ranged from 20 to 40.5,with a median of 36.The results of the chi-square test showed that 26 items(61.9%)had statistically significant differences between the Chinese SRs and Cochrane SRs,and the reporting of Cochrane SRs in the 26 items were better than Chinese SRs(P<0.05).The results of multiple regression analysis showed that the year of publication was positively correlated with methodological quality and reporting quality(P<0.05),while the journal type and first author unit type were negatively correlated with PRISMA 2020 results(P<0.05).(3)Seven studies were included,of which two studies were priority setting tools for systematic reviews,one study focused on the priority setting of updating SRs,and four studies set the priority of SRs for a particular field or country.Each of the three tools has its advantages,but a common disadvantage is that the items and their explanations are not clearly expressed.Conclusions:(1)The SR work carried out by scholars in China has the problem of overlapping researches that cannot be ignored,and the lack of strict regulation and guidance in methods such as in registration,protocol writing,and literature search has resulted in great waste of resources.It is necessary to further strengthen regulatory constraints and guidance,adhere to problem orientation and quality awareness,strengthen SR training,and reduce overlapping research.(2)The quality of Chinese SRs published in recent years has gradually improved.However,the overall methodological quality and reporting quality of Chinese SRs is low,and there are differences with Cochrane SRs.The type of high-quality journals and authors’ units will influence journal editors and SR authors’ understanding of SRs and improve the quality of research.In general,most of the SRs conducted in China belong to low-quality repetitive studies,which should be given high attention in medicine and public health.(3)Although there are few priority-setting tools for SRs and generally suffer from poorly formulated items and descriptions making it difficult to use.However,Chinese researchers should attach importance to the role of setting research priorities in promoting high-quality research and conserving research resources.China can refer to the experience of other countries,organizations or institutions to determine the priority issues of SRs in the field of healthcare,and promote the connotative development of systematic review in China from scale expansion to quality improvement. |
PDF Full Text Request