Scientific publications on systematic review and meta-analysis from Chinese authors: a 10-year survey of the English literature

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are playing an increasingly important role in clinical research and practice. This study aimed to measure the scientific production of systematic review and meta-analysis from the three major regions of China: the Mainland (ML), Hong Kong (HK), and Taiwan (TW). English articles on systematic review and meta-analysis from ML, HK, and TW from 2001 to 2010 were retrieved from the PubMed database. The total number of articles, impact factors (IF), and articles published in high-impact journals were conducted for quantity and quality comparisons among the three regions. There were 1 587 published articles from ML (1 292), HK (203), and TW (92) during the past ten years. The annual total numbers of articles in the three regions increased significantly from 2001 to 2010 (from 13 to 677). The number of articles from ML has exceeded that from TW since 2001, and surpassed that from HK in 2003. The accumulated IF of articles from ML (3 488.24) was higher than those from HK (493.16) and TW (216.39). HK had the highest average IF of 3.31, followed by ML of 2.90 and TW of 2.85. Researchers from HK published a larger proportion of papers in high-impact journals than those from ML and TW. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most popular journal in China. Chinese authors have been very active to enhance the systematic review and meta-analysis research over the past ten years, especially in ML. The gap between ML and the other two regions has been narrowed. But there is still considerable room for Chinese authors to improve their studies on systematic review and meta-analysis.

Keywords

systematic review / meta-analysis / China / Chinese / impact factor

References

[1] Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151(4): W65-94

[2] Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48(1): 167-171

[3] Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007; 4(3): e78

[4] Shojania KG, Bero LA. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Eff Clin Pract 2001; 4(4): 157-162

[5] Top 20 countries in all fields, 2000-<month>August</month><day>31</day>, 2010. http://sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2010/10decAll(Access on April 15, 2011)

[6] Robinson KA, Goodman SN. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154(1): 50-55

[7] Ragghianti CP, Martínez R, Martins J, Gallo JE. Comparative study of scientific publications in Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay (1995-2004). Arq Bras Oftalmol 2006; 69(5): 719-723

[8] Wang J. Evidence-based medicine in China. Lancet 2010; 375(9714): 532-533

[9] Carter MJ. Evidence-based medicine: an overview of key concepts. Ostomy Wound Manage 2010; 56(4): 68-85

[10] Andersen J, Belmont J, Cho CT. Journal impact factor in the era of expanding literature. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2006; 39(6): 436-443

[11] Oh HC, Lim JF. Is the journal impact factor a valid indicator of scientific value? Singapore Med J 2009; 50(8): 749-751

[12] About The Cochrane Library. http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/AboutTheCochraneLibrary.html#CDSR (Access on <month>April</month><day>16</day>, 2011)

[13] Chinese Cochrane Centre (in Chinese).http://www.hxyx.com/cochrane_new (Access on <month>April</month><day>16</day>, 2011)

[14] Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB; the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000; 283(15): 2008-2012

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Zhuan Liao (Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University) for statistical analyses, Ms. Mary Trinh and Mr. Yujing Liang (School of Foreign Languages, Hunan University of Commerce) for writing assistance.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg