Cargando…

Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey

BACKGROUND: To investigate the prevalence of protocol registration (or development) among published dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs), and whether DRMAs with a protocol are better than those not. METHODS: Three databases were searched for eligible DRMAs. The modified AMSTAR (14 items) and PRISMA c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Chang, Cheng, Liang-Liang, Liu, Yu, Jia, Peng-Li, Gao, Ming-Yue, Zhang, Chao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6460643/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30975073
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0715-y
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: To investigate the prevalence of protocol registration (or development) among published dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs), and whether DRMAs with a protocol are better than those not. METHODS: Three databases were searched for eligible DRMAs. The modified AMSTAR (14 items) and PRISMA checklists (26 items) were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality, with each item assigned 1 point if it met the requirement or 0 if not. We matched (1,2) DRMAs with registered or published protocol to those not, by region and publication years. The summarized quality score and compliance rate of each item were compared between the two groups. Multivariable regression was employed to see if protocol registration or development was associated with total quality score. RESULTS: We included 529 DRMAs, with 45 (8.51%) completed protocol registration or development. We observed a higher methodological score for DRMAs with protocol than the matched controls (9.47 versus 8.58, P <  0.01); this embodied in 4 out of 14 items of AMSTAR [e.g., Duplicate data extraction (rate difference, RD = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.30; P = 0.01). A higher reporting score (cubic transformed) for DRMAs with protocol than the matched controls was also observed (11,875.00 versus 10,229.53, P <  0.01); which embodied in 6 out of 26 items of PRISMA [e.g. Describe methods for publication bias (RD = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.14; P = 0.02)]. Regression analysis suggested positive association between protocol registration or development and total reporting score (P = 0.012) while not for methodological score (P = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of DRMAs completed protocol registration or development, and those with protocol were better reported than those not. Protocol registration or development is highly desirable. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0715-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.