Table 2 General characteristics of included SRs
From: Reporting quality of Cochrane systematic reviews with Chinese herbal medicines
Category | Descriptive characteristics | N (%) |
|---|---|---|
Meta-analyses | Yes | 85 (78.0) |
Number of authors included | 2–5 | 75 (68.8) |
6–10 | 31 (28.4) | |
> 10 | 3 (2.8) | |
Background of the first author | Clinician | 44 (40.4) |
Researcher/Methodologist | 65 (59.6) | |
Possess TCM background | 27 (24.8) | |
Institution of the first author | Hospital | 35 (32.1) |
University | 74 (67.9) | |
Institution with EBM center | 67 (61.5) | |
Geographical distribution (corresponding author) | Mainland China | 72 (66.1) |
Australia | 15 (13.8) | |
United Kingdom | 11 (10.1) | |
Hong Kong | 6 (5.5) | |
Othersa | 5 (4.6) | |
Types of primary studies included | RCTs | 109 (100) |
Number of included RCTs | 0 | 12 (11.0) |
1–20 | 71 (65.1) | |
21–50 | 21 (19.3) | |
> 50 | 5 (4.6) | |
Number of included participants | 0 | 12 (11.0) |
1–300 | 14 (12.8) | |
301–500 | 13 (11.9) | |
501–1000 | 23 21.1) | |
1000–5000 | 36 (33.0) | |
> 5000 | 10 (9.2) | |
Unclear | 1 (0.9) | |
Funding source | Yes | 94 (86.2) |
Number of times cited | 0 | 14 (12.8) |
1–5 | 48 (44.0) | |
6–10 | 29 (26.6) | |
11–20 | 14 (12.8) | |
> 20 | 4 (3.7) | |
Update of a previous review | Yes | 49 (45.0) |
No (SRs published before 2012)b | 28 (25.7) | |
Had protocols published | Yes | 106 (97.2) |