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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |
_version_ | 1783410358715678720 |
---|---|
author | Xu, Chang Cheng, Liang-Liang Liu, Yu Jia, Peng-Li Gao, Ming-Yue Zhang, Chao |
author_facet | Xu, Chang Cheng, Liang-Liang Liu, Yu Jia, Peng-Li Gao, Ming-Yue Zhang, Chao |
author_sort | Xu, Chang |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6460643 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64606432019-04-22 Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey Xu, Chang Cheng, Liang-Liang Liu, Yu Jia, Peng-Li Gao, Ming-Yue Zhang, Chao BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2019-04-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6460643/ /pubmed/30975073 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0715-y Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Xu, Chang Cheng, Liang-Liang Liu, Yu Jia, Peng-Li Gao, Ming-Yue Zhang, Chao Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey |
title | Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey |
title_full | Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey |
title_fullStr | Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey |
title_full_unstemmed | Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey |
title_short | Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey |
title_sort | protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey |
topic | Research Article |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT xuchang protocolregistrationordevelopmentmaybenefitthedesignconductandreportingofdoseresponsemetaanalysisempiricalevidencefromaliteraturesurvey AT chengliangliang protocolregistrationordevelopmentmaybenefitthedesignconductandreportingofdoseresponsemetaanalysisempiricalevidencefromaliteraturesurvey AT liuyu protocolregistrationordevelopmentmaybenefitthedesignconductandreportingofdoseresponsemetaanalysisempiricalevidencefromaliteraturesurvey AT jiapengli protocolregistrationordevelopmentmaybenefitthedesignconductandreportingofdoseresponsemetaanalysisempiricalevidencefromaliteraturesurvey AT gaomingyue protocolregistrationordevelopmentmaybenefitthedesignconductandreportingofdoseresponsemetaanalysisempiricalevidencefromaliteraturesurvey AT zhangchao protocolregistrationordevelopmentmaybenefitthedesignconductandreportingofdoseresponsemetaanalysisempiricalevidencefromaliteraturesurvey |