Abstract:Objective To assess the methodological and reporting quality of dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs) published in Chinese journals by AMSTAR and PRISMA. Method CNKI, WanFang data, VIP and CBM were searched to collect DRMAs published in Chinese journals during 1st Jan, 2010 to 30th Dec, 2016. The following data including: education background of first author, database that being searched, the number of databases that being searched, whether reporting guidelines were used, whether being funded were extracted. The adherence of AMSTAR and PRISMA was assessed. Results A total of 28 DRMAs were included. The adherence of AMSTAR was 45.5%±0.11. The highest (100%) items were: providing the characteristics of the included studies, using appropriate methods to combine the findings of studies, assessing the likelihood of publication bias. The lowest items were: providing a priori design; stating the conflicts of interests. The adherence of PRISMA was 77.4%± 0.75. The highest (100%) items were: describing the rationale, listing and define all variables, stating the principal summary measures, presenting characteristics of each study and results of each meta-analysis done, presenting results of the assessment of publication bias. The results of regression analyses showed that the relations between the adherence of AMSTAR and the education background of first author (β=0.57, 95%CI: -5.94~7.08); the number of authors (β=0.07, 95%CI: -2.87~3.01); whether there are methodologists (β=-5.09, 95%CI: -17.37~7.19), the year of publication (β=0.49, 95%CI: -2.90~3.89); whether there is funding (β=-7.10, 95%CI: -20.07~6.87) were not statistically significant. The relations between the adherence of PRISMA and the education background of first author (β=2.21, 95%CI: -1.89~6.30); the number of authors (β=-1.07, 95%CI: -2.91~0.78), whether there are methodologists (β=-0.74, 95%CI: -8.45~0.98), the year of publication (β=0.80, 95%CI:-1.34~2.93);whether there is funding (β=-2.89, 95%CI: -11.68~5.89) were not statistically significant. Conclusion The methodological quality of DRMAs in Chinese journals is poor, and the reporting quality is moderate. The results of regression analyses show that the relations between the adherence of AMSTAR/PRISMA and the education background of first author; the number of authors; whether there are methodologists; the year of publication; whether there are funding are not statistically significant. There is an urgent need to increase the use of reporting guidelines and methodological tools in China.

Epidemiology, Quality and Reporting Characteristics of Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies Published in Chinese Journals

The reporting completeness of observational systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social science could be improved: a cross-sectional survey

Reporting quality of meta-analysis on genetic association studies published in Chinese journals

Assessment of methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis published in Chinese Journal of Nosocomiology

Epidemiology, Quality, and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Nursing Interventions Published in Chinese Journals

The assessment of the quality of reporting of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in diagnostic tests published by authors in China.

Clinical Epidemiology in China Series. Paper 3: the Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published by China' Researchers in English-language is Higher Than Those Published in Chinese-language

Quality Assessment of Statistical Methodology for the Meta-Analysis Articles

Methodological and reporting quality of dose-response meta-analyses published in Chinese journals

[Methodological Quality of Meta-analyses Regarding Studies Related to Genetic Association on Papers Published in Chinese Journals].

Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews Published in “Evidence-Based” Chinese Journals

The Quality of Evidence in Chinese Meta-Analyses Needs to Be Improved

[Appraisal of Meta-Analysis Manuscripts on Eye Diseases Published in Chinese Journals with QUOROM Statement and MOOSE Guidelines].

Assessing the Methodological and Reporting Quality of Network Meta-Analyses in Chinese Medicine

Randomized Controlled Trialquality Evaluation on the Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses Related to Interventions Published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Epidemiology, Quality And Reporting Characteristics Of Systematic Reviews Of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published In Chinese Journals

Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analysis of Interventions Published in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics

Assessment of methodology and report quality of systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of acupuncture-moxibustion in China]

A Standardized Checklist on Meta-Analysis Reporting in the Open Science Era

Methodological Quality Analysis of Systematic Review/Meta-analysis Published in Chinese Science Citation Database Journals

Reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture.