At a time when healthcare reforms are being implemented in the new era, the scientific research output in the field of general practice and primary care in China has grown rapidly in recent years. However, the methodological quality of the literature is unclear.

To evaluate the methodological quality of representative quantitative studies and systematic reviews/guidelines in the field of general practice and primary care in China in 2021, to reveal the overall methodological quality characteristics of scientific papers in this field.

A sample of 449 papers was selected from a total of 3 122 papers collected in the Primary Care and General Practice Research Paper Productivity Report in China in 2021. A methodological quality assessment group consisting of 22 researchers in the field of public health and general practice from different institutions was organized to evaluate the quality of 320 of these papers (71.3%) using six different quality assessment tools for different study designs (cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, pre- and post-intervention studies, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, guidelines and consensus) by working in pairs and under the training and guidance of an expert in evidence-based medical methodology. Descriptive statistics method was used to report the overall quality assessment results of the various types of research papers.

Of the 114 cross-sectional research papers, quality issues were prevalent in the areas of "whether the source population was representative of the study's target population" (41.2%) , "whether the reliability and validity of the survey instrument could be conclusively demonstrated" (32.5%) , "whether the survey is clinically meaningful" (26.3%) ; of the 25 cohort study papers, quality issues were more concentrated in the areas of "whether the cohort was adequately followed up" (44.0%) and "whether the co-intervention was similar among groups" (56.0%) ; of the 34 pre- and post-intervention studies, quality issues were mostly found in the areas of "whether the target outcome was measured multiple times before and after the intervention" (97.1%) , "whether the sample size was large enough to generate confidence in the study results" (82.4%) , and "whether the study participants were representative of the eligible population" (61.8%) ; of the 122 randomized controlled trials, quality concerns were mostly in the areas of "blinding of different stakeholders" (25.4%-61.5%) , "adequate concealment of random allocation" (41.8%) , and "other risks of bias" (72.1%) ; of the 19 systematic reviews, quality issues were mostly found in the areas "is the source of funding for the included studies reported" (100.0%) , "were the methods of the review developed before the start of the review" (94.7%) , "was heterogeneity reasonably discussed and explained" (84.2%) , and "was the risk of bias of individual studies considered" (84.2%) . Finally, the quality of all six clinical guidelines/consensus was rated low.

The scientific research output of recent years in the field of primary care and general practice in China is still of limited quality in general, which is particularly evident in the categories of cross-sectional studies, pre- and post-intervention studies, randomized controlled trials, guidelines and consensus. This highlights the urgency and importance of strengthening systematic training in basic research in this area of research in China, increasing the importance of research and evidence-based reporting standards, and developing pragmatic methodological specifications for the development of guidelines.