Cargando…
Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study
OBJECTIVES: Meta-analyses (MAs) are often used because they are lauded to provide robust evidence that synthesises information from multiple studies. However, the validity of MA conclusions relies on the procedural rigour applied by the authors. Therefore, this meta-research study aims to characteri...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7402002/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32747348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036349 |
_version_ | 1783566674056708096 |
---|---|
author | Leclercq, Victoria Beaudart, Charlotte Ajamieh, Sara Tirelli, Ezio Bruyère, Olivier |
author_facet | Leclercq, Victoria Beaudart, Charlotte Ajamieh, Sara Tirelli, Ezio Bruyère, Olivier |
author_sort | Leclercq, Victoria |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Meta-analyses (MAs) are often used because they are lauded to provide robust evidence that synthesises information from multiple studies. However, the validity of MA conclusions relies on the procedural rigour applied by the authors. Therefore, this meta-research study aims to characterise the methodological quality and meta-analytic practices of MAs indexed in PsycINFO. DESIGN: A meta-epidemiological study. PARTICIPANTS: We evaluated a random sample of 206 MAs indexed in the PsycINFO database in 2016. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Two authors independently extracted the methodological characteristics of all MAs and checked their quality according to the 16 items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) tool for MA critical appraisal. Moreover, we investigated the effect of mentioning Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) on the methodological quality of MAs. RESULTS: According to AMSTAR2 criteria, 95% of the 206 MAs were rated as critically low quality. Statistical methods were appropriate and publication bias was well evaluated in 87% and 70% of the MAs, respectively. However, much improvement is needed in data collection and analysis: only 11% of MAs published a research protocol, 44% had a comprehensive literature search strategy, 37% assessed and 29% interpreted the risk of bias in the individual included studies, and 11% presented a list of excluded studies. Interestingly, the explicit mentioning of PRISMA suggested a positive influence on the methodological quality of MAs. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of MAs in our sample was critically low according to the AMSTAR2 criteria. Some efforts to tremendously improve the methodological quality of MAs could increase their robustness and reliability. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7402002 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74020022020-08-17 Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study Leclercq, Victoria Beaudart, Charlotte Ajamieh, Sara Tirelli, Ezio Bruyère, Olivier BMJ Open Epidemiology OBJECTIVES: Meta-analyses (MAs) are often used because they are lauded to provide robust evidence that synthesises information from multiple studies. However, the validity of MA conclusions relies on the procedural rigour applied by the authors. Therefore, this meta-research study aims to characterise the methodological quality and meta-analytic practices of MAs indexed in PsycINFO. DESIGN: A meta-epidemiological study. PARTICIPANTS: We evaluated a random sample of 206 MAs indexed in the PsycINFO database in 2016. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Two authors independently extracted the methodological characteristics of all MAs and checked their quality according to the 16 items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) tool for MA critical appraisal. Moreover, we investigated the effect of mentioning Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) on the methodological quality of MAs. RESULTS: According to AMSTAR2 criteria, 95% of the 206 MAs were rated as critically low quality. Statistical methods were appropriate and publication bias was well evaluated in 87% and 70% of the MAs, respectively. However, much improvement is needed in data collection and analysis: only 11% of MAs published a research protocol, 44% had a comprehensive literature search strategy, 37% assessed and 29% interpreted the risk of bias in the individual included studies, and 11% presented a list of excluded studies. Interestingly, the explicit mentioning of PRISMA suggested a positive influence on the methodological quality of MAs. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of MAs in our sample was critically low according to the AMSTAR2 criteria. Some efforts to tremendously improve the methodological quality of MAs could increase their robustness and reliability. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7402002/ /pubmed/32747348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036349 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Epidemiology Leclercq, Victoria Beaudart, Charlotte Ajamieh, Sara Tirelli, Ezio Bruyère, Olivier Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study |
title | Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study |
title_full | Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study |
title_fullStr | Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study |
title_full_unstemmed | Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study |
title_short | Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study |
title_sort | methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in psycinfo: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study |
topic | Epidemiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7402002/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32747348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036349 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leclercqvictoria methodologicalqualityofmetaanalysesindexedinpsycinfoleadsforenhancementsametaepidemiologicalstudy AT beaudartcharlotte methodologicalqualityofmetaanalysesindexedinpsycinfoleadsforenhancementsametaepidemiologicalstudy AT ajamiehsara methodologicalqualityofmetaanalysesindexedinpsycinfoleadsforenhancementsametaepidemiologicalstudy AT tirelliezio methodologicalqualityofmetaanalysesindexedinpsycinfoleadsforenhancementsametaepidemiologicalstudy AT bruyereolivier methodologicalqualityofmetaanalysesindexedinpsycinfoleadsforenhancementsametaepidemiologicalstudy |