Quality of meta-analysis in nursing fields: An exploration based on the JBI guidelines

Yuying Hou, Jinhui Tian, Jun Zhang, Rongrong Yun, Zhigang Zhang, Kee Hsin Chen, Caiyun Zhang, Bo Wang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0177648
JournalPLoS One
Volume12
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 23 2017

Fingerprint

Nursing
meta-analysis
Meta-Analysis
nurses
Guidelines
systematic review
Availability
funding
Specifications
Bibliographic Databases
methodology
Software
Nurses
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Quality of meta-analysis in nursing fields : An exploration based on the JBI guidelines. / Hou, Yuying; Tian, Jinhui; Zhang, Jun; Yun, Rongrong; Zhang, Zhigang; Chen, Kee Hsin; Zhang, Caiyun; Wang, Bo.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 12, No. 5, e0177648, 23.05.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hou, Y, Tian, J, Zhang, J, Yun, R, Zhang, Z, Chen, KH, Zhang, C & Wang, B 2017, 'Quality of meta-analysis in nursing fields: An exploration based on the JBI guidelines', PLoS One, vol. 12, no. 5, e0177648. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177648
Hou, Yuying ; Tian, Jinhui ; Zhang, Jun ; Yun, Rongrong ; Zhang, Zhigang ; Chen, Kee Hsin ; Zhang, Caiyun ; Wang, Bo. / Quality of meta-analysis in nursing fields : An exploration based on the JBI guidelines. In: PLoS One. 2017 ; Vol. 12, No. 5.
@article{4ca473537ba94310b145f3edaebb4dd9,
title = "Quality of meta-analysis in nursing fields: An exploration based on the JBI guidelines",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Yuying Hou and Jinhui Tian and Jun Zhang and Rongrong Yun and Zhigang Zhang and Chen, {Kee Hsin} and Caiyun Zhang and Bo Wang",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0177648",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "5",

}

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

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

VL - 12

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

M1 - e0177648

ER -