Quality of meta-analysis in nursing fields: An exploration based on the JBI guidelines.

Background: Meta-analysis is often regarded as one of the best sources of evidence for clinical nurses due to its rigorous design and scientific reflection of the true results of nursing interventions. The quality of a meta-analysis is critical to the work of clinical decision-makers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to use the JBI guidelines to summarize the quality of RCT-based meta-analyses of reports published in domestic nursing professional journals, with a view to standardizing the research process and reporting methods. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search for RCT-based meta-analyses published in Chinese professional nursing journals, from their inception to December 31, 2015, using bibliographic databases (e.g. CNKI, WanFang Database). March 1, 2017, supplementary search 2016 literature. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion by two independent reviewers using pre-specified eligibility criteria. We evaluated the quality of reporting of the included meta-analyses using the systematic review literature reporting specification of JBI. Analyses were performed using Excel and STATA 12.0 software. Results: Three hundred and twenty-two meta-analyses were included. According to the JBI guidelines, the overall quality of the meta-analysis report was poor. The quality of core journal reports and the implementation of retrieval were better than those of non-core journals. The nature of the authors and the availability of funding support had no significant impact on the quality of the meta-analyses. Multi-unit and multi-author collaboration can help improve the quality of meta-analyses with significant impact. Conclusion: The understanding and implementation of systematic evaluation and meta-analyses in domestic nursing professional journals is worthy of recognition, and there is more work that can be done to improve the quality of these reports. Systematic review / Meta-analysis (SR / MA) makers should include the findings of this study. Multi-institutional and multi-author collaborations appear to improve research capacity and provide more reliable evidence support for clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]