The reporting characteristics and methodological quality of Cochrane reviews about health policy research.

The systematic review has increasingly become a popular tool for researching health policy. However, due to the complexity and diversity in the health policy research, it has also encountered more challenges. We set out the Cochrane reviews on health policy research as a representative to provide the first examination of epidemiological and descriptive characteristics as well as the compliance of methodological quality with the AMSTAR. 99 reviews were included by inclusion criteria, 73% of which were Implementation Strategies, 15% were Financial Arrangements and 12% were Governance Arrangements; involved Public Health (34%), Theoretical Exploration (18%), Hospital Management (17%), Medical Insurance (12%), Pharmaceutical Policy (9%), Community Health (7%) and Rural Health (2%). Only 39% conducted meta-analysis, and 49% reported being updates, and none was rated low methodological quality. Our research reveals that the quantity and quality of the evidence should be improved, especially Financial Arrangements and Governance Arrangements involved Rural Health, Health Care Reform and Health Equity, etc. And the reliability of AMSTAR needs to be tested in larger range in this field.

[1]  Keith Hurst,et al.  What Works? Evidence‐based Policy and Practice in Public Services , 2003 .

[2]  Till Bärnighausen,et al.  Study-design selection criteria in systematic reviews of effectiveness of health systems interventions and reforms: A meta-review. , 2012, Health policy.

[3]  C. Allen,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration: International activity within Cochrane Review Groups in the first decade of the twenty‐first century , 2011, Journal of evidence-based medicine.

[4]  Elena Parmelli,et al.  An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[5]  Peter C Smith,et al.  What works?Evidence-based policy and practice in public services , 2000 .

[6]  Jeremy M. Grimshaw,et al.  Increasing the demand for childhood vaccination in developing countries: a systematic review , 2009, BMC international health and human rights.

[7]  John N Lavis,et al.  Working within and beyond the Cochrane Collaboration to make systematic reviews more useful to healthcare managers and policy makers. , 2006, Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante.

[8]  Andy Haines,et al.  Use of research to inform public policymaking , 2004, The Lancet.

[9]  Michael G. Wilson,et al.  Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted , 2013, Journal of health services research & policy.

[10]  P. Tugwell,et al.  How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[11]  Ross S Bailie,et al.  Making systematic reviews more useful for policy-makers. , 2005, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[12]  Jeremy Grimshaw,et al.  AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  Sophie Hill,et al.  Consumer‐oriented interventions for evidence‐based prescribing and medicines use: an overview of systematic reviews , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[14]  F. Rutten,et al.  The evidence-based approach in health policy and health care delivery. , 2000, Social science & medicine.

[15]  Gerald Gartlehner,et al.  [GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence: publication bias]. , 2012, Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen.

[16]  王林,et al.  From The Cochrane Library , 2013 .

[17]  R. Niederman,et al.  The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing temporomandibular joint disorder surgical and non-surgical treatment , 2008, BMC oral health.

[18]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[19]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[20]  F. Chiappelli,et al.  From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance , 2010, The open dentistry journal.

[21]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[22]  Cindy Farquhar,et al.  3 The Cochrane Library , 1996 .

[23]  S. Brophy,et al.  Interventions for latent autoimmune diabetes (LADA) in adults. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[24]  Alexander Tsertsvadze,et al.  Systematic reviews: when is an update an update? , 2006, The Lancet.