Methodological and reporting quality evaluation of meta-analyses on the Chinese herbal preparation Zheng Qing Feng Tong Ning for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

• Main Authors: Mingge Liang, Lan Yan, Zhigang Mei, Yanan Luo, Xiaoqiang Hou, Zhitao Feng
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2020-06-01
• Series: BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
• Subjects: Sinomenine; Zheng Qing Feng Tong Ning; Rheumatoid arthritis; Meta-analysis; Methodology; Reporting quality
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12906-020-02978-5

Abstract Background Zheng Qing Feng Tong Ning (ZQFTN) is a sinomenine (SIN) preparation that has been used in clinical practice. Our study aimed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of meta-analyses on the Chinese herbal formula ZQFTN for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Systematic searches were carried out with the 5 following electronic databases from inception to July 2019: China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, VIP database for Chinese technical periodicals (VIP), Cochrane Library and PubMed. The quality of the methodology and reporting was measured with the assessment of multiple systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) scale, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results Eight studies were identified. Among the 16 items of the AMSTAR 2 scale, four items were optimally reported (“Y” =100% of the items), and another four items were poorly reported (“Y” =0% of the items). Only 2 studies received a good overall score (“Y” ≥50% of the items). Regarding the PRISMA statement, the scores of 5 studies were lower than the average score (17.69), indicating that the quality of the reports was very low. In terms of the GRADE, none of the 61 results were of high quality (0.0%). Fifteen results were of medium quality (25%), 34 were of low quality (55%), and 12 were of very low quality (20%). Among the five downgrading factors, deviation risk (n = 61, 100%) was the most common downgrading factor, followed by inconsistency (n = 30, 50%), publication bias (n = 17, 28%), inaccuracy (n = 11, 18%) and indirectness (n = 0, 0%). Conclusions The methodological and reporting quality of the meta-analyses and systematic reviews in the included studies are less than optimal, and researchers should undergo additional training and follow the AMSTAR 2 scale, PRISMA statement and GRADE to design high-quality studies in the future.