Skip to main content

Table 3 Overall methodological quality of the 106 systematic reviews on acupuncture by bibliographical characteristics

From: Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study

Bibliographical characteristics Critically low^ Low^ Moderate^ High^ P
Total included SRs 99 (93.4) 6 (5.7) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.9)  
Cochrane Review < 0.001*
 Yes 0 (0.0) 4 (80.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (20.0)  
 No 99 (98.0) 2 (2.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0)  
An update of a previous review 0.007*
 Yes (Cochrane review) 3 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 Yes (non-Cochrane review) 12 (75.0) 3 (18.8) 0 (0.0) 1 (6.3)  
 No 84 (96.6) 3 (3.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
Reported intervention harms 0.659
 Yes 70 (92.1) 5 (6.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.3)  
 No 29 (96.7) 1 (3.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
Funding location of the SR 0.859
 Europe 4 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 America 4 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 Asia 61 (92.4) 4 (6.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.5)  
 Not reported 7 (87.5) 1 (12.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 No funding support 23 (95.8) 1 (4.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
SRs that searched non-English databases 0.048*
 Yes 82 (93.2) 6 (6.8) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 No 17 (94.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.6)  
Report year of coverage of literature search 0.323
 Yes 74 (91.4) 6 (7.4) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.2)  
 Partially 19 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 Not mentioned 6 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
Search terms reported for one or more electronic databases 0.287
 Topics/free text/keywords/MeSH 47 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 Full Boolean 48 (88.9) 5 (9.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.9)  
 Readers are referred elsewhere for full search strategy 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 No research term 4 (80.0) 1 (20.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
Eligibility criteria based on language of publication 0.467
 English only 9 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 Language other than English 5 (83.3) 1 (16.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 English and other languages 28 (87.5) 3 (9.4) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.1)  
 Not reported 57 (96.6) 2 (3.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
Risk-of-bias assessment tools 0.769
 Cochrane risk of bias 92 (92.9) 6 (6.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.0)  
 Jadad scale 2 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 Pedro Scale 2 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 Others 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
 Not mentioned 2 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
Included a PRISMA-like flow diagram 0.865
 Yes 95 (93.1) 6 (5.9) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.0)  
 No 4 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  
  1. MeSH National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings, PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis, SR Systematic review
  2. ^Values are n (% in subgroup)
  3. *P value of Kruskal-Wallis test was < 0.05
Back to article page

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

Contact us