Qingqing Jiang1, Qiaoyan Liu2, Fan Chen1, Xiantao Zeng3, Fujian Song4, Zuxun Lu5, Shiyi Cao6. 1. School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 2. Research Institute of Rehabilitation Information, China Rehabilitation Science Institute, Beijing, China; China Rehabilitation Research Center, Beijing, China. 3. Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Department of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, The Second Clinical College of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. 4. Norwich Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom. 5. School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. Electronic address: zunxunlu@yahoo.com. 6. School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. Electronic address: caoshiyi@hust.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the characteristics, methodological quality, and reporting of statistical analyses of published dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed to identify DRMAs published in 2017. The reporting characteristics and methodological qualities were assessed by the PRISMA (27 items) and AMSTAR (11 items), respectively. We also summarized the reporting of statistical analyses of included DRMAs. RESULTS: We identified 93 DRMAs, most of which (59/93) were conducted by Chinese researchers and the main outcome was the incidence of cancers. Of the PRISMA and AMSTAR items, twenty and five were well complied (80% or more), respectively. The compliance rates of several PRISMA checklist items, such as structured summary, objectives, protocol and registration, and funding, were less than 50%. There were no criteria to estimate the doses for the open-ended intervals of exposure or intervention doses. When the restricted cubic splines were used to fit nonlinear dose-response relationships, there were also no criteria to determine the fixed knots. CONCLUSION: The adherence to the methodological items of reporting guidelines and statistical analysis of published DRMAs were suboptimal. Development of reporting guidelines to assist authors in writing and readers in critically appraising the reports of DRMAs is timely.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the characteristics, methodological quality, and reporting of statistical analyses of published dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed to identify DRMAs published in 2017. The reporting characteristics and methodological qualities were assessed by the PRISMA (27 items) and AMSTAR (11 items), respectively. We also summarized the reporting of statistical analyses of included DRMAs. RESULTS: We identified 93 DRMAs, most of which (59/93) were conducted by Chinese researchers and the main outcome was the incidence of cancers. Of the PRISMA and AMSTAR items, twenty and five were well complied (80% or more), respectively. The compliance rates of several PRISMA checklist items, such as structured summary, objectives, protocol and registration, and funding, were less than 50%. There were no criteria to estimate the doses for the open-ended intervals of exposure or intervention doses. When the restricted cubic splines were used to fit nonlinear dose-response relationships, there were also no criteria to determine the fixed knots. CONCLUSION: The adherence to the methodological items of reporting guidelines and statistical analysis of published DRMAs were suboptimal. Development of reporting guidelines to assist authors in writing and readers in critically appraising the reports of DRMAs is timely.