Laleh Jamshidi1, Mieke Heyvaert2, Lies Declercq3, Belén Fernández-Castilla3, John M Ferron4, Mariola Moeyaert5, S Natasha Beretvas6, Patrick Onghena2, Wim Van den Noortgate3. 1. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Belgium; IMEC-ITEC, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: laleh.jamshidi@kuleuven.be. 2. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Belgium. 3. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Belgium; IMEC-ITEC, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Belgium. 4. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA. 5. State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA. 6. University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methodological rigor is a fundamental factor in the validity and credibility of the results of a meta-analysis. AIM: Following an increasing interest in single-case experimental design (SCED) meta-analyses, the current study investigates the methodological quality of SCED meta-analyses. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We assessed the methodological quality of 178 SCED meta-analyses published between 1985 and 2015 through the modified Revised-Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) checklist. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: The main finding of the current review is that the methodological quality of the SCED meta-analyses has increased over time, but is still low according to the R-AMSTAR checklist. A remarkable percentage of the studies (93.80% of the included SCED meta-analyses) did not even reach the midpoint score (22, on a scale of 0-44). The mean and median methodological quality scores were 15.57 and 16, respectively. Relatively high scores were observed for "providing the characteristics of the included studies" and "doing comprehensive literature search". The key areas of deficiency were "reporting an assessment of the likelihood of publication bias" and "using the methods appropriately to combine the findings of studies". CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Although the results of the current review reveal that the methodological quality of the SCED meta-analyses has increased over time, still more efforts are needed to improve their methodological quality.
BACKGROUND: Methodological rigor is a fundamental factor in the validity and credibility of the results of a meta-analysis. AIM: Following an increasing interest in single-case experimental design (SCED) meta-analyses, the current study investigates the methodological quality of SCED meta-analyses. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We assessed the methodological quality of 178 SCED meta-analyses published between 1985 and 2015 through the modified Revised-Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) checklist. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: The main finding of the current review is that the methodological quality of the SCED meta-analyses has increased over time, but is still low according to the R-AMSTAR checklist. A remarkable percentage of the studies (93.80% of the included SCED meta-analyses) did not even reach the midpoint score (22, on a scale of 0-44). The mean and median methodological quality scores were 15.57 and 16, respectively. Relatively high scores were observed for "providing the characteristics of the included studies" and "doing comprehensive literature search". The key areas of deficiency were "reporting an assessment of the likelihood of publication bias" and "using the methods appropriately to combine the findings of studies". CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Although the results of the current review reveal that the methodological quality of the SCED meta-analyses has increased over time, still more efforts are needed to improve their methodological quality.
Authors: Laura E Simons; Johan W S Vlaeyen; Lies Declercq; Allison M Smith; Justin Beebe; Melinda Hogan; Eileen Li; Corey A Kronman; Farah Mahmud; Jenelle R Corey; Christine B Sieberg; Christine Ploski Journal: Pain Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Luísa Prada; Ana Prada; Miguel Marques Antunes; Ricardo M Fernandes; João Costa; Joaquim J Ferreira; Daniel Caldeira Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2022-04-10 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Lauren E Harrison; Sarah N Webster; Amanda R Van Orden; Ellison Choate; Nicole Jehl; Jennifer Stinson; Rikard K Wicksell; Beth D Darnall; Laura E Simons Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 3.006