Chang Xu1, Yu Liu2, Chao Zhang3, Joey S W Kwong4, Jian-Guo Zhou5, Long Ge6, Jing-Yu Huang7, Tong-Zu Liu8. 1. Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Wuhan & Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Gansu Provincial Maternity and Child-Care Hospital, Gansu, China. 3. Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Research, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, China. 4. JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 5. Department of Oncology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China. 6. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. 7. Department of Thoracic Tumor Ward, Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. huangjingyu1009@163.com. 8. Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. liutongzu@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) has been widely used in exploring cancer risk factors. Understanding the quality of published DRMAs on cancer risk factors may be beneficial for informed prevention for cancer. METHODS: We searched eligible DRMAs from 1st January 2011 to 31st-July-2017. The modified AMSTAR 1.0 (15 items) and PRISMA checklist (26 items) were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of included DRMAs. We compared the adherence rate of these items by journal type, publication years, region, and funding information, in prior. RESULTS: We included 260 DRMAs. Colorectal, breast, prostate, and lung were the four most commonly investigated cancers. For methodological quality, 6 out of 15 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 2 by less than 60%, only 7 of which by 80% or more. For reporting quality, 3 out of 26 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 1 by less than 80% (> 30%), and 20 of which by 80% or more. Those published in general journal, published more recently, and received any financial support have better methodological (Rate differences, RDs = 10-36%; P < 0.05) and reporting adherence (RDs = 12-36%; P < 0.05). DRMAs by Asian author tend to be less qualified than by European and American. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of DRMAs on cancer risk factors is worrisome that the findings of them may be deflective; more efforts are needed to improve the validity of it.
BACKGROUND: Dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) has been widely used in exploring cancer risk factors. Understanding the quality of published DRMAs on cancer risk factors may be beneficial for informed prevention for cancer. METHODS: We searched eligible DRMAs from 1st January 2011 to 31st-July-2017. The modified AMSTAR 1.0 (15 items) and PRISMA checklist (26 items) were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of included DRMAs. We compared the adherence rate of these items by journal type, publication years, region, and funding information, in prior. RESULTS: We included 260 DRMAs. Colorectal, breast, prostate, and lung were the four most commonly investigated cancers. For methodological quality, 6 out of 15 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 2 by less than 60%, only 7 of which by 80% or more. For reporting quality, 3 out of 26 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 1 by less than 80% (> 30%), and 20 of which by 80% or more. Those published in general journal, published more recently, and received any financial support have better methodological (Rate differences, RDs = 10-36%; P < 0.05) and reporting adherence (RDs = 12-36%; P < 0.05). DRMAs by Asian author tend to be less qualified than by European and American. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of DRMAs on cancer risk factors is worrisome that the findings of them may be deflective; more efforts are needed to improve the validity of it.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer prevention; Dose–response meta-analysis; Methodological quality; Reporting quality
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Freddie Bray; Rebecca L Siegel; Jacques Ferlay; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Rebecca L Siegel; Elizabeth M Ward; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Beverley J Shea; Jeremy M Grimshaw; George A Wells; Maarten Boers; Neil Andersson; Candyce Hamel; Ashley C Porter; Peter Tugwell; David Moher; Lex M Bouter Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Matthew J Page; Larissa Shamseer; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Margaret Sampson; Andrea C Tricco; Ferrán Catalá-López; Lun Li; Emma K Reid; Rafael Sarkis-Onofre; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 11.069
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