Aidan G Cashin1, Hopin Lee2, Sarah E Lamb3, Sally Hopewell3, Gemma Mansell4, Christopher M Williams5, Steven J Kamper6, Nicholas Henschke7, James H McAuley8. 1. Pain Research Education & Management Program, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia; Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 2. Centre for Statistics in Medicine & Rehabilitation Research in Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia; The Centre for Pain, Health and Lifestyle (CPHL), New Lambton Heights, Australia. Electronic address: hopin.lee@ndorms.ox.ac.uk. 3. Centre for Statistics in Medicine & Rehabilitation Research in Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 4. Department of Psychology, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. 5. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia; The Centre for Pain, Health and Lifestyle (CPHL), New Lambton Heights, Australia. 6. The Centre for Pain, Health and Lifestyle (CPHL), New Lambton Heights, Australia; School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 7. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 8. Pain Research Education & Management Program, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia; School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate whether systematic reviews of mediation studies identify limitations in reporting quality and methodological conduct. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed) to identify systematic reviews of studies that used mediation analysis to investigate mechanisms of health care interventions or exposures in clinical populations between 2007 and 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Summary data on the characteristics, reporting quality, and methodological conduct of the studies included in the systematic reviews were extracted independently by two reviewers. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017059834). RESULTS: Fifty-four systematic reviews were included, representing 11 health care fields, 26 health conditions, and 2008 mediation studies. Eighteen of fifty-four systematic reviews (33%) explicitly stated that the reporting of primary studies was suboptimal. Of these, 14/18 (78%) reviews noted incomplete reporting of effect sizes and precision estimates from mediation analyses. Twenty-nine of fifty-four systematic reviews (54%) identified limitations in the methodological conduct of primary studies. CONCLUSION: The reporting and methodological conduct of studies investigating mechanisms in health care seems to be suboptimal. Guidance is needed to improve the quality, completeness, and transparency of mediation studies.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate whether systematic reviews of mediation studies identify limitations in reporting quality and methodological conduct. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed) to identify systematic reviews of studies that used mediation analysis to investigate mechanisms of health care interventions or exposures in clinical populations between 2007 and 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Summary data on the characteristics, reporting quality, and methodological conduct of the studies included in the systematic reviews were extracted independently by two reviewers. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017059834). RESULTS: Fifty-four systematic reviews were included, representing 11 health care fields, 26 health conditions, and 2008 mediation studies. Eighteen of fifty-four systematic reviews (33%) explicitly stated that the reporting of primary studies was suboptimal. Of these, 14/18 (78%) reviews noted incomplete reporting of effect sizes and precision estimates from mediation analyses. Twenty-nine of fifty-four systematic reviews (54%) identified limitations in the methodological conduct of primary studies. CONCLUSION: The reporting and methodological conduct of studies investigating mechanisms in health care seems to be suboptimal. Guidance is needed to improve the quality, completeness, and transparency of mediation studies.
Authors: Hopin Lee; Aidan G Cashin; Sarah E Lamb; Sally Hopewell; Stijn Vansteelandt; Tyler J VanderWeele; David P MacKinnon; Gemma Mansell; Gary S Collins; Robert M Golub; James H McAuley; A Russell Localio; Ludo van Amelsvoort; Eliseo Guallar; Judith Rijnhart; Kimberley Goldsmith; Amanda J Fairchild; Cara C Lewis; Steven J Kamper; Christopher M Williams; Nicholas Henschke Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Aidan G Cashin; James H McAuley; Sarah E Lamb; Sally Hopewell; Steven J Kamper; Christopher M Williams; Nicholas Henschke; Hopin Lee Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Judith J M Rijnhart; Sophia J Lamp; Matthew J Valente; David P MacKinnon; Jos W R Twisk; Martijn W Heymans Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 4.615