BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies are frequently performed, but no widely accepted guidance is available at present. We performed a systematic scoping review of published methodological recommendations on how to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies.MethodsWe searched online databases and websites and contacted experts in the field to locate potentially eligible articles. We included articles that provided any type of recommendation on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. We extracted and summarised recommendations on pre-defined key items: protocol development, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, dealing with different study designs, risk of bias assessment, publication bias, heterogeneity, statistical analysis. We summarised recommendations by key item, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement as well as areas where recommendations were missing or scarce.ResultsThe searches identified 2461 articles of which 93 were eligible. Many recommendations for reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies were transferred from guidance developed for reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. Although there was substantial agreement in some methodological areas there was also considerable disagreement on how evidence synthesis of observational studies should be conducted. Conflicting recommendations were seen on topics such as the inclusion of different study designs in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the use of quality scales to assess the risk of bias, and the choice of model (e.g. fixed vs. random effects) for meta-analysis.ConclusionThere is a need for sound methodological guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, which critically considers areas in which there are conflicting recommendations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0495-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAlthough the 2009 (H1N1) influenza pandemic officially ended in August 2010, the virus will probably circulate in future years. Several types of H1N1 vaccines have been tested including various dosages and adjuvants, and meta-analysis is needed to identify the best formulation.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and nine clinical trial registries to April 2011, in any language for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on healthy children, adolescents, adults and the elderly. Primary outcome was the seroconversion rate according to hemagglutinination-inhibition (HI); secondary outcomes were adverse events. For the primary outcome, we used head-to-head meta-analysis and multiple-treatments meta-analysis.ResultsEighteen RCTs could be included in all primary analyses, for a total of 76 arms (16,725 subjects). After 2 doses, all 2009 H1N1 split/subunit inactivated vaccines were highly immunogenic and overcome CPMP seroconversion criteria. After 1 dose only, all split/subunit vaccines induced a satisfactory immunogenicity (> = 70%) in adults and adolescents, while only some formulations showed acceptable results for children and elderly (non-adjuvanted at high-doses and oil-in-water adjuvanted vaccines). Vaccines with oil-in-water adjuvants were more immunogenic than both nonadjuvanted and aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines at equal doses and their immunogenicity at doses < = 6 µg (even with as little as 1.875 µg of hemagglutinin antigen) was not significantly lower than that achieved after higher doses. Finally, the rate of serious vaccine-related adverse events was low for all 2009 H1N1 vaccines (3 cases, resolved in 10 days, out of 22826 vaccinated subjects). However, mild to moderate adverse reactions were more (and very) frequent for oil-in-water adjuvanted vaccines.ConclusionsSeveral one-dose formulations might be valid for future vaccines, but 2 doses may be needed for children, especially if a low-dose non-adjuvanted vaccine is used. Given that 15 RCTs were sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, future trials sponsored by non-industry agencies and comparing vaccines using different types of adjuvants are needed.

Objective To evaluate the extent of non-publication or delayed publication of registered randomized trials on vaccines, and to investigate potential determinants of delay to publication. Design Survey.Data sources Trials registry websites, Scopus, PubMed, Google. Main outcome measures Publication status of trial results and time from completion to publication in peer reviewed journals. Study selectionData synthesis Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate potential predictors of publication delay. ResultsWe analysed 384 trials (85% sponsored by industry). Of 355 trials (404 758 participants) that were completed, 176 (n=151 379) had been published in peer reviewed journals. Another 42 trials (total sample 62 765) remained unpublished but reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov. The proportion of trials published 12, 24, 36, and 48 months after completion was 12%, 29%, 53%, and 73%, respectively. Including results posted in ClinicalTrials.gov, 48 months after study completion results were available for 82% of the trials and 90% of the participants. Delay to publication between non-industry and industry sponsored trials did not differ, but non-industry sponsored trials were 4.42-fold (P=0.008) more likely to report negative or mixed findings. Negative results were reported by only 2% of the published trials.Conclusions Most vaccine trials are published eventually or the results posted in ClinicalTrials.gov, but delays to publication of several years are common. Actions should focus on the timely dissemination of data from vaccine trials to the public.

Targeted educational programs are needed to improve the expertise of physicians, and, ultimately, to enhance the appropriate use of genetic tests in clinical practice.