Tools to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews of nursing intervention in China: global implications of the findings

Zhang, Juxia, Wang, Jiancheng, Han, Lin, Cao, Xin and Shields, Linda (2016) Tools to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews of nursing intervention in China: global implications of the findings. Nursing Outlook, . doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2016.11.004


Author Zhang, Juxia
Wang, Jiancheng
Han, Lin
Cao, Xin
Shields, Linda
Title Tools to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews of nursing intervention in China: global implications of the findings
Journal name Nursing Outlook   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0029-6554
1528-3968
Publication date 2016-11-24
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1016/j.outlook.2016.11.004
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Total pages 12
Place of publication Philadelphia, PA, United States
Publisher Mosby
Collection year 2017
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Background: The number of systematic reviews (SRs) of nursing interventions is increasing in China. Authors of such studies are encouraged to use a risk of bias tool for assessing individual studies. Therefore, it is important to know how these tools have been applied in SRs in Chinese nursing.

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to examine risk of bias tools used by Chinese nursing researchers to assess the quality of individual studies included in SRs of nursing interventions.

Methods: We searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Journal Full-Text Database, Chinese Academic Journal Full-Text Database, and Wanfang Database. Each relevant review found was subjected to quality assessment, data synthesis, and comprehensively described.

Discussion: Two hundred eight SRs were identified, most (94.7%) of which used the words systematic review or meta-analysis in their titles. Most used quality assessment rather than risk of bias as their major method to gauge quality; 7.6% reported on six domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Only four provided a risk of bias graph/summary figure.

Conclusions: Many SRs of nursing interventions are published in Chinese journals, and their assessment of risk of bias is usually either lacking or incomplete, potentially producing misleading results. This may also be the case in other countries. Assessment of risk of bias in SRs is a requisite. Authors who systematically review nursing literature should follow the latest Cochrane Collaboration Handbook.
Keyword Chinese journals
Risk of bias
Systematic reviews
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 08:50:44 EST by Anthony Yeates on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)