Background: Numerous systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses on non-genetic risk factors for Parkinson’s disease (PD) development have been published with inconsistent conclusions. Objective: This overview of SRs aimed to summarize evidence on non-genetic factors for the development of PD from the published SRs, and explore the reasons behind the conflicting results. Methods: Three international databases were searched for SRs with meta-analyses summarized evidence on non-genetic factors for PD development. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 tool was used to appraise the methodological quality of included SRs. Pooled effect estimations were extracted from each meta-analysis. Results: Forty-six SRs covered six categories, and more than 80 factors were included in this overview. Thirty-nine SRs (84.7%) were judged to be of critically low methodological quality. Evidence from prospective studies showed that physical activity, smoking, coffee, caffeine, tea, fat intake, ibuprofen use, calcium channel blocker use, statin use, thiazolidinediones, and high serum urate levels significantly reduced the risk of PD, while dairy intake, diabetes, hormone replacement therapy, depression, mood disorder, bipolar disorder, and aspirin use significantly increased the risk of PD. Differences in study designs (e.g., cohort studies, case-control studies) accounted for the conflicting results among included SRs. Conclusion: Modifiable lifestyle factors such as physical activity and tea and coffee drinking may reduce the risk of PD, which may offer PD prevention strategies and hypotheses for future research. However, the designs of primary studies on PD risk factors and related SRs need to be improved and harmonized.

Objective To assess the methodological quality of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis and to identify areas for improvement. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews with IPD meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on intervention effects published in English. Results 323 IPD meta-analyses covering 21 clinical areas and published between 1991 and 2019 were included: 270 (84%) were non-Cochrane reviews and 269 (84%) were published in journals with a high impact factor (top quarter). The IPD meta-analyses showed low compliance in using a satisfactory technique to assess the risk of bias of the included randomised controlled trials (43%, 95% confidence interval 38% to 48%), accounting for risk of bias when interpreting results (40%, 34% to 45%), providing a list of excluded studies with justifications (32%, 27% to 37%), establishing an a priori protocol (31%, 26% to 36%), prespecifying methods for assessing both the overall effects (44%, 39% to 50%) and the participant-intervention interactions (31%, 26% to 36%), assessing and considering the potential of publication bias (31%, 26% to 36%), and conducting a comprehensive literature search (19%, 15% to 23%). Up to 126 (39%) IPD meta-analyses failed to obtain IPD from 90% or more of eligible participants or trials, among which only 60 (48%) provided reasons and 21 (17%) undertook certain strategies to account for the unavailable IPD. Conclusions The methodological quality of IPD meta-analyses is unsatisfactory. Future IPD meta-analyses need to establish an a priori protocol with prespecified data syntheses plan, comprehensively search the literature, critically appraise included randomised controlled trials with appropriate technique, account for risk of bias during data analyses and interpretation, and account for unavailable IPD.

No abstract

Background To summarize the up-to-date empirical evidence on trial-level characteristics of randomized controlled trials associated with treatment effect estimates. Methods A systematic review searched three databases up to August 2020. Meta-epidemiological (ME) studies of randomized controlled trials on intervention effect were eligible. We assessed the methodological quality of ME studies using a self-developed criterion. Associations between treatment effect estimates and trial-level characteristics were presented using forest plots. Results Eighty ME studies were included, with 25/80 (31%) being published after 2015. Less than one-third ME studies critically appraised the included studies (26/80, 33%), published a protocol (23/80, 29%), and provided a list of excluded studies with justifications (12/80, 15%). Trials with high or unclear (versus low) risk of bias on sequence generation (3/14 for binary outcome and 1/6 for continuous outcome), allocation concealment (11/18 and 1/6), double blinding (5/15 and 2/4) and smaller sample size (4/5 and 2/2) significantly associated with larger treatment effect estimates. Associations between high or unclear risk of bias on allocation concealment (5/6 for binary outcome and 1/3 for continuous outcome), double blinding (4/5 and 1/3) and larger treatment effect estimates were more frequently observed for subjective outcomes. The associations between treatment effect estimates and non-blinding of outcome assessors were removed in trials using multiple observers to reach consensus for both binary and continuous outcomes. Some trial characteristics in the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB2) tool have not been covered by the included ME studies, including using validated method for outcome measures and selection of the reported results from multiple outcome measures or multiple analysis based on results (e.g., significance of the results). Conclusions Consistently significant associations between larger treatment effect estimates and high or unclear risk of bias on sequence generation, allocation concealment, double blinding and smaller sample size were found. The impact of allocation concealment and double blinding were more consistent for subjective outcomes. The methodological and reporting quality of included ME studies were dissatisfactory. Future ME studies should follow the corresponding reporting guideline. Specific guidelines for conducting and critically appraising ME studies are needed.

No abstract