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

- We identified 99 Cochrane reviews of health policy research.
- We examine the reporting characteristics and methodological quality of the reviews.
- Of the reviews, 39.4% conducted meta-analysis and 48.5% reported being updates.
- None of the reviews were rated low methodological quality.
- The quantity and quality of the review on Rural Health is low.

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.