108384
论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
- 3.4 Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
- 3.2 Clin Epidemiol
- 2.6 Cancer Manag Res
- 2.9 Infect Drug Resist
- 3.7 Clin Interv Aging
- 5.1 Drug Des Dev Ther
- 3.1 Int J Chronic Obstr
- 6.6 Int J Nanomed
- 2.6 Int J Women's Health
- 2.9 Neuropsych Dis Treat
- 2.8 OncoTargets Ther
- 2.0 Patient Prefer Adher
- 2.2 Ther Clin Risk Manag
- 2.5 J Pain Res
- 3.0 Diabet Metab Synd Ob
- 3.2 Psychol Res Behav Ma
- 3.4 Nat Sci Sleep
- 1.8 Pharmgenomics Pers Med
- 2.0 Risk Manag Healthc Policy
- 4.1 J Inflamm Res
- 2.0 Int J Gen Med
- 3.4 J Hepatocell Carcinoma
- 3.0 J Asthma Allergy
- 2.2 Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
- 2.4 J Multidiscip Healthc
已发表论文
关于肝癌治疗方法的系统评价的方法学质量：一项横断面研究
Authors Cheng BZZ, Wang BH, Zhong CC, Zhang Y, Ho FF , Chung VC
Received 27 April 2025
Accepted for publication 19 August 2025
Published 16 September 2025 Volume 2025:12 Pages 2109—2121
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/JHC.S536964
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Mohamed Shaker
Billy Z Z Cheng,1 Betty H Wang,2 Claire Chenwen Zhong,2 Yuning Zhang,2 Fai Fai Ho,3 Vincent CH Chung2
1Department of Administration, Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 2JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China; 3School of Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Betty H Wang, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China, Email huanwang@link.cuhk.edu.hk
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are indispensable for presenting reliable evidence of the effectiveness of treatments. However, methodological flaws can affect their reliability and validity.
Aim: This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs on liver cancer (LC) treatments and identify potential factors affecting their reliability.
Methods: A comprehensive literature search was carried out on four databases to identify eligible SRs published between January 2014 and October 2023. We appraised the methodological quality of included SRs by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool. Multivariable regression analysis was employed to investigate the factors influencing the methodological quality.
Results: A total of 119 SRs were included and appraised. Only one SR (0.8%) was rated as high overall quality. One (0.8%), nine (7.6%), and 108 (90.8%) were appraised as moderate, low, and critical low quality, respectively. SRs published more recently, with higher journal impact factors, or with corresponding author from Europe have better performance.
Conclusion: The methodological quality of SRs on LC treatments was unsatisfactory. Future SR authors should improve quality of SRs through registering an a priori protocol, providing explanation for selection of study designs, using a comprehensive literature search strategy, listing all excluded studies and justifying their reasons, describing the included studies in adequate detail, and reporting funding resources of primary studies.
Keywords: liver cancer, cross-sectional study, bias, meta-analysis, systematic reviews
1Department of Administration, Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 2JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China; 3School of Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Betty H Wang, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China, Email huanwang@link.cuhk.edu.hk
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are indispensable for presenting reliable evidence of the effectiveness of treatments. However, methodological flaws can affect their reliability and validity.
Aim: This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs on liver cancer (LC) treatments and identify potential factors affecting their reliability.
Methods: A comprehensive literature search was carried out on four databases to identify eligible SRs published between January 2014 and October 2023. We appraised the methodological quality of included SRs by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool. Multivariable regression analysis was employed to investigate the factors influencing the methodological quality.
Results: A total of 119 SRs were included and appraised. Only one SR (0.8%) was rated as high overall quality. One (0.8%), nine (7.6%), and 108 (90.8%) were appraised as moderate, low, and critical low quality, respectively. SRs published more recently, with higher journal impact factors, or with corresponding author from Europe have better performance.
Conclusion: The methodological quality of SRs on LC treatments was unsatisfactory. Future SR authors should improve quality of SRs through registering an a priori protocol, providing explanation for selection of study designs, using a comprehensive literature search strategy, listing all excluded studies and justifying their reasons, describing the included studies in adequate detail, and reporting funding resources of primary studies.
Keywords: liver cancer, cross-sectional study, bias, meta-analysis, systematic reviews