LIANG Cui 1,2,3 , DENG Xinxin 1,2,3 , CUI Lu 1,2,3 , WANG Hanbin 1,2,3 , HU Xiaoye 1,2,3 , HUANG Jiayi 1,2,3 , YANG Kehu 2,3 , LI Xiuxia 1,2,3
  • 1. Health Technology Assessment Center/Evidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 2. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 3. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
YANG Kehu, Email: yangkh-ebm@lzu.edu.cn; LI Xiuxia, Email: lixiuxia@lzu.edu.cn
Systematic review; Meta-analysis; AMSTAR-2; Methodology; Burden of disease
10.7507/1672-2531.202409027
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective  To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness, analyses the factors affecting it, so as to provide a reference basis for improving the methodological quality of related studies. Methods  Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness were identified in PubMed, searching from its inception to 12 October 2024. Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness was included, the methodological quality of the included literature was evaluated using AMSTAR-2, and data were extracted using Excel 2021. Results  A total of 308 systematic reviews/ meta-analysis were included, with a fluctuating upward trend in the number of publications from 2006 to 2024; of these, a total of 12 were rated as low quality. According to the AMSTAR-2 entries, the largest number of documents fully conformed to entry 16 (82.14%), followed by entry 5 (81.49%), and entry 8 (72.73%); one document conformed to entry 10 (0.32%), and relatively few conformed to entry 12 (68.83%), entry 13 (85.39%), and entry 15 (67.53%). Conclusion The methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness needs to be improved, and the main problems include the lack of pre-study protocols, the absence of a list of excluded literature, and the less than adequate explanation of heterogeneity and risk of bias, etc. There is still a need to further improve the methodological quality of the systematic reviews and to promote the long-term development of evidence based medicine.

Copyright © the editorial department of Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine of West China Medical Publisher. All rights reserved