Assessing heterogeneity in meta‐analyses of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> infection‐related clinical studies: a critical appraisal

Huang, Jia; Zheng, Ge Fan; Irvine, E. Jan; Karlberg, Johan

doi:10.1111/j.1443-9573.2004.00169.x

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 68 publications

(303 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, Espitalier and colleagues 38 reported that 20% of SRs used a random-effects model and 59% used a fixed effects model. Huang and colleagues 37 found that 61% of studies did not describe the model used during analysis, which is consistent with our findings (n¼79, 38%).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Heterogeneity of studies in anesthesiology systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological review and proposal for evidence mapping

Umberham

Hedin

Detweiler

et al. 2017

British Journal of Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heterogeneity among the primary studies included in a systematic review (SR) is one of the most challenging considerations for systematic reviewers. Current practices in anaesthesiology SRs have not been evaluated, but traditional methods may not provide sufficient information to evaluate the true nature of these differences. We address these issues by examining the practices for evaluating heterogeneity in anesthesiology reviews. Also, we propose a mapping method for presenting heterogeneous aspects of the primary studies in SRs.We evaluated heterogeneity practices reported in SRs published in highly ranked anesthesiology journals and Cochrane reviews. Elements extracted from the SRs included heterogeneity tests, models used, analyses conducted, plots used, and I2 values. Additionally, we selected a SR to develop an evidence map in order to display clinical heterogeneity.Our statistical analysis showed 150/207 SRs reporting a test for statistical heterogeneity. Plots were used in 138 reviews to display heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were the most commonly reported analysis (54%). Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used sparingly (25%; 23% respectively). A random effects model was most commonly reported (33%). Heterogeneity statistics across meta-analyses suggested that, in our sample, the majority (55%) did not present sufficient heterogeneity to be of great concern. Cochrane reviews (n=58) were also analysed. Plots were used in 88% of Cochrane reviews. Subgroup analysis was used in 59% Cochrane reviews, while sensitivity analysis was used in 62%.Many reviews did not provide sufficient detail regarding heterogeneity. We are calling for improvement to reporting practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…We noted some inconsistencies between our results and previous research examining heterogeneity. Huang and colleagues 37 assessed heterogeneity in 38 meta-analyses of Helicobacter pylori. Only 50% of the meta-analyses reported a statistical test for heterogeneity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%