Standardized report quality analysis of Meta-analysis articles and systematic reviews published in Chinese nursing journals in 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective:To conduct a standardized report analysis on the meta-analysis articles and systematic reviews published in Chinese nursing journals in 2018.Methods:Develop evaluation criteria based on the relevant content and entries of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT),A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews(AMSTAR),and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA).And to evaluate the report quality according to the methods and results of the meta-analysis articles and systematic reviews published in Chinese nursing journals in 2018.The methods involved program and registration,search strategy,information source,search term,search time,inclusion criteria,exclusion criteria,document screening method,data extraction method,quality evaluation method,statistical method,general effect index,heterogeneity test method,research bias,and other analysis.The results included retrieved process,articles selection,basic articles characteristics,articles quality evaluation results,results analysis (results of individual studies and combination of results),bias analysis (investigation internal bias and inter-disciplinary bias),and other analysis.Results:A preliminary retrieval of 910 related articles was carried out,and 325 articles were left after checking NoteExpress.The initial screening was performed by reading the topics and abstracts.A total of 259 articles were finally involved by carefully reading,in which 238 meta-analysis articles,9 systematically evaluated in qualitative research,4 re-evaluated in the systematic review and 8 other kinds of literatures.In method part,most of the 238 meta-analysis articles reported database sources,inclusion criteria,exclusion criteria,quality assessment methods,and statistical methods.But registration of the document reporting scheme no found.Only 130 articles reported specific search strategy;181 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) used the risk bias assessment tool that developed by the Cochrane Collaboration,and 18 non-RCTs used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale(NOS).In result part,most of the articles reported the basic characteristics of the included articles,the quality evaluation results,and the results of the meta-analysis.138 articles reported the screening flow chart.Only 140 articles in the quality evaluation results were graded,and 82 articles reported the bias.Conclusions:The articles reports of systematic evaluation in the domestic nursing field were standardized,and the key items in the method and result part were reported both.However,the results involving the articles search strategy,the quality evaluation and bias analysis of the included studies,and the heterogeneity analysis were still not standardized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.253 | 0.525 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.055 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".