Julian P T Higgins1, Peter W Lane2, Betsy Anagnostelis3, Judith Anzures-Cabrera4, Nigel F Baker5, Joseph C Cappelleri6, Scott Haughie7, Sally Hollis8, Steff C Lewis9, Patrick Moneuse10, Anne Whitehead11. 1. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 2. Statistical Consultancy Group; GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Stevenage, UK. 3. Royal Free Hospital Medical Library, University College London, London, UK. 4. Biostatistics, Roche Products Ltd, Welwyn Garden City, UK. 5. Amgen Ltd, Cambridge, UK. 6. Biostatistics, Pfizer Inc, Groton, Connecticut, USA. 7. Primary Care Business Unit, Pfizer Global R&D, Sandwich, UK. 8. Global Medicines Development, AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, UK. 9. Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK. 10. Biometrics, Vifor Pharma, Glattbrugg, Switzerland. 11. Medical and Pharmaceutical Statistics Research Unit, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because meta-analyses are increasingly prevalent and cited in the medical literature, it is important that tools are available to assess their methodological quality. When performing an empirical study of the quality of published meta-analyses, we found that existing tools did not place a strong emphasis on statistical and interpretational issues. METHODS: We developed a quality-assessment tool using existing materials and expert judgment as a starting point, followed by multiple iterations of input from our working group, piloting, and discussion. After having used the tool for our empirical study, agreement for four key items in the tool was measured using weighted kappa coefficients. RESULTS: Our tool contained 43 items divided into four key areas (data sources, analysis of individual studies, meta-analysis methods, and interpretation), and each area ended with a summary question. We also produced guidance for completing the tool. Agreement between raters was fair to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The tool should usefully inform subsequent initiatives to develop quality-assessment tools for meta-analysis. We advocate use of consensus between independent raters when assessing statistical appropriateness and adequacy of interpretation in meta-analyses.
BACKGROUND: Because meta-analyses are increasingly prevalent and cited in the medical literature, it is important that tools are available to assess their methodological quality. When performing an empirical study of the quality of published meta-analyses, we found that existing tools did not place a strong emphasis on statistical and interpretational issues. METHODS: We developed a quality-assessment tool using existing materials and expert judgment as a starting point, followed by multiple iterations of input from our working group, piloting, and discussion. After having used the tool for our empirical study, agreement for four key items in the tool was measured using weighted kappa coefficients. RESULTS: Our tool contained 43 items divided into four key areas (data sources, analysis of individual studies, meta-analysis methods, and interpretation), and each area ended with a summary question. We also produced guidance for completing the tool. Agreement between raters was fair to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The tool should usefully inform subsequent initiatives to develop quality-assessment tools for meta-analysis. We advocate use of consensus between independent raters when assessing statistical appropriateness and adequacy of interpretation in meta-analyses.
Authors: S Abirami; Noopur Tushar Panchanadikar; M S Muthu; Kavitha Swaminathan; K C Vignesh; Amit Agarwal; Richard Kirubakaran Journal: Int J Clin Pediatr Dent Date: 2022