Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine interventions published in Chinese journals

Ref ID	570
First Author	B. Ma
Journal	PLOS ONE
Year Of Publishing	2011
URL	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3102106/
Keywords	• Complimentary & Alternative • Low reporting quality • Publication bias • Protocols • Searching • Low methodological quality • Single reviewer • Disclosure • Risk of bias • Pre-specification
Problem(s)	• Poor consideration of publication bias • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported • Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Grey literature excluded • No registered or published protocol • Insufficient literature searches • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
Number of systematic reviews included	369
Summary of Findings	Low quality was demonstrated across a number of AMSTAR criteria.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes