James C Coyne1, Brett D Thombs, Mariet Hagedoorn. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3535 Market St., Room 676, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. jcoyne@mail.med.upenn.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined four meta-analyses of behavioral interventions for adults (Dixon, Keefe, Scipio, Perri, & Abernethy, 2007; Hoffman, Papas, Chatkoff, & Kerns, 2007; Irwin, Cole, & Nicassio, 2006; and Jacobsen, Donovan, Vadaparampil, & Small, 2007) that have appeared in the Evidence Based Treatment Reviews section of Health Psychology. DESIGN: Narrative review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We applied the following criteria to each meta-analysis: (1) whether each meta-analysis was described accurately, adequately, and transparently in the article; (2) whether there was an adequate attempt to deal with methodological quality of the original trials; (3) the extent to which the meta-analysis depended on small, underpowered studies; and (4) the extent to which the meta-analysis provided valid and useful evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS: Across the four meta-analyses, we identified substantial problems with the transparency and completeness with which these meta-analyses were reported, as well as a dependence on small, underpowered trials of generally poor quality. CONCLUSION: Results of our exercise raise questions about the clinical validity and utility of the conclusions of these meta-analyses. Results should serve as a wake up call to prospective authors, reviewers, and end-users of meta-analyses now appearing in the literature. Copyright 2010 APA, all rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: We examined four meta-analyses of behavioral interventions for adults (Dixon, Keefe, Scipio, Perri, & Abernethy, 2007; Hoffman, Papas, Chatkoff, & Kerns, 2007; Irwin, Cole, & Nicassio, 2006; and Jacobsen, Donovan, Vadaparampil, & Small, 2007) that have appeared in the Evidence Based Treatment Reviews section of Health Psychology. DESIGN: Narrative review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We applied the following criteria to each meta-analysis: (1) whether each meta-analysis was described accurately, adequately, and transparently in the article; (2) whether there was an adequate attempt to deal with methodological quality of the original trials; (3) the extent to which the meta-analysis depended on small, underpowered studies; and (4) the extent to which the meta-analysis provided valid and useful evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS: Across the four meta-analyses, we identified substantial problems with the transparency and completeness with which these meta-analyses were reported, as well as a dependence on small, underpowered trials of generally poor quality. CONCLUSION: Results of our exercise raise questions about the clinical validity and utility of the conclusions of these meta-analyses. Results should serve as a wake up call to prospective authors, reviewers, and end-users of meta-analyses now appearing in the literature. Copyright 2010 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Anna Meijer; Michelle Roseman; Vanessa C Delisle; Katherine Milette; Brooke Levis; Achyuth Syamchandra; Michael E Stefanek; Donna E Stewart; Peter de Jonge; James C Coyne; Brett D Thombs Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 3.006