{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02399435426958363, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019054340155257588, 'mean_word_length': 5.085836909871245, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Methodological and reporting quality assessment for Chinese systematic reviews and meta analysis in oral medicine].

PURPOSE
To evaluate the methodology and reporting quality of Chinese systematic reviews and meta analysis in oral medicine.


METHODS
Chinese literatures of systematic reviews and meta analysis in oral medicine were searched in the CBM, VIP, WANFANG Database and CNKI from the establishment date to August 30, 2014. Two researchers screened and evaluated the data independently, and disagreements were resolved by discussion. Methodology and reporting quality of included literatures were evaluated by AMSTAR and PRISMA scale.


RESULTS
Of the 204 literatures included in the analysis, the highest and lowest scores of methodology quality were 9 and 0, respectively. The average score was 4.95 ± 2.45. The main problems were insufficient in literature searching, absence of a list of included and excluded studies, lack of assessment for publication bias, etc. The highest and lowest scores of reporting quality were 21 and 4, and the average score of reporting quality was 14.07 ± 3.62. The main problems were incomplete report in abstract, data collection and analysis methods, bias control, conclusion, etc.


CONCLUSIONS
The methodological qualities of Chinese systematic reviews and meta analysis in oral medicine are generally low, and their reporting qualities are also needed to be improved.