The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study

Wen, Jin; Ren, Yu; Wang, Li; Li, Youping; Liu, Ya; Zhou, Min; Liu, Ping; Lu, Yunxiang; Li, Yang; Tian, Wenyan

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008

Cited by 68 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the quality of the way in which treatment meta-analyses were conducted and reported was not predicted by novel or more traditional measures of their impact in the scientifi c community after controlling for the lower citation rates observed for more recent reviews. The overall scores of the treatment meta-analyses included in this review on the QUOROM and ISQRO are consistent with the range of results (QUOROM, 9-12.3; ISQRO, 2.7-4.7) reported by other studies of the quality of meta-analyses of RCTs in the health sciences [4,21,27,29,30]. These results are also similar to those reported by Bereza and colleagues [31] in the only other review of meta-analyses of anxiety disorder RCTs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…The detection of an association between year of publication and reporting quality is consistent with the fi nding in another study of a linear increase in scores on the QUOROM for 161 meta-analyses published over a 5-year period [21]. However, others have either not detected this trend [27] or have attributed this fi nding primarily to improvements in the reporting of Cochrane reviews [7••].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Changes in quality over time are also assessed given evidence that more recent meta-analyses generally are of a higher standard of quality [21]. In addition, a preliminary assessment is conducted of 1) the relationship of traditional and novel measures of article impact to one another and 2) the extent to which these metrics vary across different topic areas (treatment, neuropsychology, genetics, and neuroimaging) within the anxiety disorder literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses

Ipser

Stein²

2009

Curr Psychiatry Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meta-analyses are seen as representing the pinnacle of a hierarchy of evidence used to inform clinical practice. Therefore, the potential importance of differences in the rigor with which they are conducted and reported warrants consideration. In this review, we use standardized instruments to describe the scientific and reporting quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of the treatment of anxiety disorders. We also use traditional and novel metrics of article impact to assess the influence of meta-analyses across a range of research fields in the anxiety disorders. Overall, although the meta-analyses that we examined had some flaws, their quality of reporting was generally acceptable. Neither the scientific nor reporting quality of the meta-analyses was predicted by any of the impact metrics. The finding that treatment meta-analyses were cited less frequently than quantitative reviews of studies in current "hot spots" of research (ie, genetics, imaging) points to the multifactorial nature of citation patterns. A list of the meta-analyses included in this review is available on an evidence-based website of anxiety and trauma-related disorders.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses

Ipser

Stein²

2009

Curr Psychiatry Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These can be factors of interest given that the quality of SRs have improved over the last years [29]. Although the cardiovascular disease field is one of the widest area of investigation, we found too few multiple SRs to explore these issues.…”

Section: Summary Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction: a systematic review

Lucenteforte

Moja

Pecoraro

et al. 2015

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To clarify the impact of multiple (covering the same population,intervention, control, and outcomes) systematic reviews (SRs) on interventions for myocardial infarction (MI). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical Evidence (BMJ Group) sections and related search strategies regarding MI were used to identify multiple SRs published between 1997 and 2007. Multiple SRs were classified as discordant if they featured conflicting results or interpretation of them.RESULTS: Thirty-six SRs (23.5% of 153 on the treatment or prevention of MI) were classified as multiple and grouped in 16 clusters [ie, at least two SRs with the same PICO (population, condition/disease, intervention, control) and at least one common outcome] exploring angioplasty, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors,anticoagulants, antiplatelets, beta-blockers, and stents. Complete agreement on statistically significant differences between interventions was found in 7 of 10 clusters with a shared composite outcome. Agreement was reduced when single outcomes were considered. Despite substantial variation and limited agreement in reporting of major outcomes, SRs agreed in their conclusions on the superiority of either the intervention or control in 14 of 16 clusters. Sources of minor discrepancies were found in terms of study and outcome selection, subgroup analyses, and interpretation of findings. CONCLUSION: Multiple SRs agreed in their qualitative conclusions but not on reporting and on analyses of hard outcomes. Discordance on significance of treatment effects was due to a combination of variation in design with inclusion of different studies and lack of precision for single hard outcomes compared with a composite outcome. Such inconsistencies among SRs could potentially slow the translation of SRs' results to clinical and public health decision making and suggest the need for a broader methodological and clinical agreement on their design

show abstract

“…We conducted this scoping review in a similar manner to previously published studies assessing the quality of systematic reviews [18] or compliance to the QUOROM statement for meta-analyses [27]. These studies were conducted after the publication of the corresponding guidelines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting of health estimates prior to GATHER: a scoping review

Cokljat

Henderson

Paterson

et al. 2017

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Generating estimates of health indicators at the global, regional, and country levels is increasingly in demand in order to meet reporting requirements for global and country targets, such as the sustainable development goals (SDGs). However, such estimates are sensitive to availability of input data, underlying analytic assumptions, variability in statistical techniques, and often have important limitations. From a user perspective, there is often a lack of transparency and replicability. In order to define best practices in reporting data and methods used to calculate health estimates, the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) working group developed a minimum checklist of 18 items that must be reported within each study publishing health estimates, so that users may make an assessment of the quality of the estimate. Objective: We conducted a scoping review to assess the state of reporting amongst a cross-sectional sample of studies published prior to the publication of GATHER. Methods: We generated a sample of UN reports and journal articles through a combination of a Medline search and hand-searching published health estimates. From these studies we extracted the percentage of studies correctly reporting each item on the checklist, the proportion of items reported per study (the GATHER performance score), and how this score varied depending on study type. Results: The average proportion of items reported per study was 0.47, and the poorest-performing items related to documentation and availability of input data, availability of the statistical code used and the subsequent output data, and a complete detailed description of all the steps of the data analysis. Conclusions: Methods for health estimates are not currently fully reported, and the implementation of the GATHER guidelines will improve the availability of information required to make an assessment of study quality.

show abstract

The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study

Cited by 68 publications

References 15 publications

A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses

A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses

Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction: a systematic review

Reporting of health estimates prior to GATHER: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About