Chang Xu1, Yu Liu2, Peng-Li Jia3, Ling Li1, Tong-Zu Liu4, Liang-Liang Cheng1, Ke Deng1, A S M Borhan5, Lehana Thabane5, Xin Sun6. 1. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center and CREAT Group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center, Chengdu, China. 2. Gansu Provincial Maternity and Child-Care Hospital, Gansu, China. 3. School of Management, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China. 4. Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. 5. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1; Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St Joseph's Healthcare, 3rd Floor, Martha Wing, Room H-325, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON L8N 4A6, Canada. 6. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center and CREAT Group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center, Chengdu, China. Electronic address: sunx79@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate methodological quality of published dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) and explore study characteristics associated with the quality. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched three databases for published DRMAs and used a modified AMSTAR (15 items) checklist to assess the methodological quality. We summarized the compliance of those DRMAs to the AMSTAR items and used multivariable regression analysis to explore the association between prespecified study characteristics with the overall methodological quality. RESULTS: We identified 529 DRMAs. Of the methodological quality items, six were well complied (80% or more) and six poorly complied (30% or fewer) by these DRMAs. The median score was nine points [first and third quartile: 7, 10] and only 64/529 had score over 10 points. Regression analysis suggested that studies with more authors (β = 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05, 0.33), published more recently (β = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.36), with financial support (β = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.70), conducted by authors from European (other regions vs. European, β = -0.68; 95% CI: -1.05, -0.31) were associated with better methodological quality. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of published DRMAs was suboptimal. Substantial efforts are warranted to improve the quality, including developing methodology guideline, involving more methodological trained authors, and so forth.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate methodological quality of published dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) and explore study characteristics associated with the quality. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched three databases for published DRMAs and used a modified AMSTAR (15 items) checklist to assess the methodological quality. We summarized the compliance of those DRMAs to the AMSTAR items and used multivariable regression analysis to explore the association between prespecified study characteristics with the overall methodological quality. RESULTS: We identified 529 DRMAs. Of the methodological quality items, six were well complied (80% or more) and six poorly complied (30% or fewer) by these DRMAs. The median score was nine points [first and third quartile: 7, 10] and only 64/529 had score over 10 points. Regression analysis suggested that studies with more authors (β = 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05, 0.33), published more recently (β = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.36), with financial support (β = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.70), conducted by authors from European (other regions vs. European, β = -0.68; 95% CI: -1.05, -0.31) were associated with better methodological quality. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of published DRMAs was suboptimal. Substantial efforts are warranted to improve the quality, including developing methodology guideline, involving more methodological trained authors, and so forth.
Authors: Chang Xu; Yu Liu; Chao Zhang; Joey S W Kwong; Jian-Guo Zhou; Long Ge; Jing-Yu Huang; Tong-Zu Liu Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Dawid Storman; Magdalena Koperny; Joanna Zając; Maciej Polak; Paulina Weglarz; Justyna Bochenek-Cibor; Mateusz J Swierz; Wojciech Staskiewicz; Magdalena Gorecka; Anna Skuza; Adam A Wach; Klaudia Kaluzinska; Małgorzata M Bała Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 3.390