Reporting quality of Cochrane systematic reviews with Chinese herbal medicines

Application of Pineapple Waste to the Removal of Toxic Contaminants: A Review

The presence of pollutants in large swaths of water is among the most pressing environmental issues of our time. This is mainly due to the inappropriate disposal of industrial sewerage into nearby water supplies and the production of a broad range of potentially hazardous contaminants. Pineapple is a fruit mainly grown in tropical regions. Refuse production begins with the collection of raw materials and continues prior to being refined. Pineapple processing industries generate waste (peel, core, pomace, and crown) that is high in bioactive compounds. The byproducts often include more valuable compounds with greater nutritional and therapeutic value than the final product. This review focuses on the application of pineapple and components, adsorbent synthesized from pineapple for the removal of pollutants.

Development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of animal experiments in the field of traditional Chinese medicine

OBJECTIVE

In recent years, there are several systematic reviews published on animal experiments of Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) guidelines provide a guarantee for significantly improving the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis (MAs) to a certain extent; however, there are still certain defects found in the quality of SRs/MAs of animal experiments of TCM. It has been found that especially, the descriptions of the rationale and animal characteristics of TCM interventions are inadequate. As a result, we have developed a novel reporting guideline for SRs/MAs of animal experimental in the field of TCM (PRISMA-ATCM) to overcome these problems.

METHODS

PRISMA-ATCM reporting guidelines were formed by analyzing both the status and quality of published SRs/MAs of animal experiments and consulting experts in the related fields, and then by Delphi consultation, consensus meeting and revision.

RESULTS

Among the 27 items on the PRISMA checklist, Title (1), Structured summary (2), Rationale (3), Objectives (4), Protocol and registration (5), Eligibility criteria (6), Data items (11), Planned methods of analysis (14), Study characteristics (18), Summary of evidence (24), Limitations (25), and Funding (27) have been extensively revised and expanded, to specifically include the details about TCM intervention and animal characteristics. In addition, illustrative examples and explanations have been provided for each item.

CONCLUSION

PRISMA-ATCM could markedly improve the quality SRs/MAs of animal experiments in the field of TCM.

Effect of Crocus sativus (Saffron) Intake on Top of Standard Treatment, on Disease Outcomes and Comorbidities in Patients with Rheumatic Diseases: Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) and Level of Adherence to the CONSORT Statement for Randomized Controlled Trials Delivering Herbal Medicine Interventions

Rheumatic diseases (RDs) are often complicated by chronic symptoms and frequent side-effects associated with their treatment. Saffron, a spice derived from the Crocus sativus L. flower, is a popular complementary and alternative medicine among patients with RDs. The present systematic review aimed to summarize the available evidence regarding the efficacy of supplementation with saffron on disease outcomes and comorbidities in patients with RD diagnoses. PubMed, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov and the grey literature were searched until October 2021, and relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were screened for eligibility using Rayyan. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane’s Risk of Bias-2.0 (RoB) tool. A synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) was performed by vote counting and an effect direction plot was created. Out of 125 reports, seven fulfilled the eligibility criteria belonging to five RCTs and were included in the SWiM. The RCTs involved patients with rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia, and evaluated outcomes related to pain, disease activity, depression, immune response, inflammation, oxidative stress, health, fatigue and functional ability. The majority of trials demonstrated some concerns regarding overall bias. Moreover, the majority of trialists failed to adhere to the formula elaborations suggested by the CONSORT statement for RCTs incorporating herbal medicine interventions. Standardization of herbal medicine confirms its identity, purity and quality; however, the majority of trials failed to adhere to these guidelines. Due to the great heterogeneity and the lack of important information regarding the standardization and content of herbal interventions, it appears that the evidence is not enough to secure a direction of effect for any of the examined outcomes.

Clinical Epidemiology in China series. Paper 3: The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by China' researchers in English-language is higher than those published in Chinese-language

OBJECTIVE

To assess the methodological and reporting quality of Chinese- and English -language systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) published by Chinese authors between 2016 and 2018.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE and Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) for SRs/MAs led by Chinese authors published between 2016 and 2018. We used random sampling to select 10% of the eligible SRs/MAs published in each year from CSCD, and then matched the same number of SRs/MAs in MEDLINE. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. Stratified analyses were conducted to compare the differences of quality between Chinese- and English language SRs/MAs.

RESULTS

We identified 336 SRs/MAs (168 in Chinese and 168 in English). The reporting quality in Chinese-language SRs/MAs was slightly lower than English-language SRs/MAs (mean PRISMA scores: 20.58 vs. 21.71 in 2016, 19.87 vs. 21.24 in 2017, and 21.29 vs. 22.38 in 2018). Less than half of both Chinese- and English-language SRs/MAs complied with item 5 (protocol and registration), item 7 (information sources), item 8 (search) and item 27 (funding)). The methodological quality in Chinese -language SRs/MAs was also slightly lower than English -language SRs/MAs (mean AMSTAR-2 scores: 8.07 vs. 9.36 in 2016; 9.21 vs. 10.26 in 2017; 8.86 vs. 9.28 in 2018). Three items (item 2: established a protocol; item 4: use a comprehensive literature search; and item 10: report the sources of funding) were adhered to by less than 10% of both Chinese- and English -language SRs/MAs. Only one (0.6%) Chinese-language SRs/MA and nine (5.4%) English-language SRs/MAs were rated as high methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

The reporting and methodological quality of English-language SRs/MAs conducted by authors from China between 2016 and 2018 were slightly better than those of Chinese -language SRs/MAs.

PRISMA extension for moxibustion 2020: recommendations, explanation, and elaboration

BACKGROUND

Moxibustion is a common intervention of Chinese medicine (CM). Systematic reviews (SRs) on moxibustion are increasing. Although the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement provides guidelines for SRs, the quality of moxibustion-related SRs is still not satisfactory. In particular, descriptions of the interventions and the rationale for using moxibustion are insufficient. To address these inadequacies, the working group developed this PRISMA extension for reporting SRs of moxibustion (PRISMA-M 2020).

METHODS

A group of CM clinical professionals, methodologists of SRs, reporting guideline developers, and journal editors developed this PRISMA-M 2020 through a comprehensive process that includes registration, literature review, consensus meetings, Delphi exercises for soliciting comments, and revision, resulting in this final draft.

RESULTS

Seven of the 27 PRISMA checklist items, namely title (1), rationale (3), eligibility criteria (6), data item (11), additional analyses (16), study characteristics (18), and additional analysis (23), were extended, with specific reference to the application of moxibustion. Illustrative examples and explanations for each item are provided.

CONCLUSION

The PRISMA-M 2020 will help improve the reporting quality of SRs with moxibustion.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

We have registered it on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network, particularly under the item of PRISMA-TCM: http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-systematic-reviews/#65 .

Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion

Background

Moxibustion is one of the major interventions of Chinese medicine (CM). The systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of moxibustion interventions. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to moxibustion was adequately reported.

Methods

Seven databases (including four English and three Chinese databases) were systematically searched for SRs of moxibustion that were published up to 31 December 2019. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 14-item of moxibustion-related information designed according to CM theory and the STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Moxibustion (STRICTOM). Descriptive statistics were also used to analyze their baseline characteristics.

Results

A total of 97 SRs of moxibustion were identified from 2011 to 2019. For 27-item of PRISMA, except item 5, 8, 16 and 23, the remaining 23 items had the reporting compliances higher than 55%, of which 2 items (item 20 and 26) were fully reporting (100%). However, for moxibustion-related information, 69.1% (67/97) SRs did not provide the specific type of moxibustion, 39.2% (38/97) lacked details regarding the materials, procedure and technique used for moxibustion, 67.0% (65/97) did not report the selection criteria of acupoints for moxibustion, 28.9% (28/97) did not provide the number or duration of treatment sessions, 69.1% (67/97) did not provide any information about safety evaluation, and 94.8% (92/97) SRs did not report the treatment environment. For 51 (55.4%) of 92 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of moxibustion interventions.

Conclusion

The reporting quality of SRs of moxibustion need further improvements in terms of adequate reporting of moxibustion interventions and of moxibustion-related rationales. Reporting guideline of "PRISMA extension for moxibustion interventions" should be developed thus to improve their quality.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Extension for Chinese Herbal Medicines 2020 (PRISMA-CHM 2020)

Chinese Herbal Medicines (CHM) are the most common interventions of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), typically administered as either single herbs or formulas. Systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CHM treatments accurately and reliably. Unfortunately, the reporting quality of SRs with CHM is not optimal, especially the reporting of CHM interventions and the rationale of why these interventions were selected. To address this problem, a group of TCM clinical experts, methodologists, epidemiologists, and editors has developed a PRISMA extension for CHM interventions (PRISMA-CHM) through a comprehensive process, including registration, literature review, consensus meeting, three-round Delphi survey, and finalization. The PRISMA checklist was extended by introducing the concept of TCM Pattern and the characteristics of CHM interventions. A total of twenty-four items (including sub-items) are included in the checklist, relating to title (1), structured summary (2), rationale (3), objectives (4), eligibility criteria (6), data items (11), synthesis of results (14, 21), additional analyses (16, 23), study characteristics (18), summary of evidence (24), and conclusions (26). Illustrative examples and explanations are also provided. The group hopes that PRISMA-CHM 2020 will improve the reporting quality of SRs of CHM.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of Chinese herbal medicine as adjuvant treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Whether combining Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) and chemotherapy to treat patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has clinical benefits has yet to be confirmed. A meta-analysis was performed to address the efficacy of CHM in patients with advanced NSCLC.

METHODS

Seven databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCO), WANFANG DATA and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), were systematically searched for available literature through March10, 2020. A meta-analysis was conducted to generate combined risk ratios(RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for objective response rates (ORRs), disease control rates (DCRs), and 1-year overall survival (OS) rates, and a random-effects model was used to estimate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95 % CI for quality or life (QOL), median survival time (mST) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Reports of 14 randomized controlled trials involving 1451 patients were included in the analysis. Among them, 739 patients received CHMs, and 712 patients received chemotherapy alone. The ORR (RR = 1.37, 95 % CI [1.20-1.58], p =  .000), DCR (RR = 1.13, 95 % CI [1.07-1.21], p = 0.000), QOL (SMD = 1.47; 95 % CI [0.30-2.64]; p = 0.014), mST (SMD = 1.62; 95 % CI [1.15-2.08];p =  .000), and 1-year OS rate (RR = 1.24, 95 % CI [1.05-1.47], p = 0.01) were higher in patients with NSCLC who received CHMs than in those who received only chemotherapy. However, the CHM group was not found to have a higher median PFS (SMD = 1.27, 95 % CI [-0.22-2.78], p =  .095) than the chemotherapy group. Publication bias for ORR and DCR was indicated by funnel plot. For the efficacy endpoint, no evidence of a lack of robustness was found, according to the sensitivity analysis. These results must be interpreted with caution due to differences in the designs of the trials and patients' characteristics, and also due to the presence of missing data.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that higher ORR, DCR, QOL, mST and 1-year OS rate were associated with CHM use as an adjuvant to chemotherapy. Although these results require further confirmation, CHMs apparently have potential therapeutic value for patients with advanced NSCLC.