ReviewAmerican journal of epidemiology2009
The quality of meta-analyses of genetic association studies: a review with recommendations.
Review in American journal of epidemiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between genes and reflexive attention.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Associations between Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Gene Polymorphisms and Different Types of Diabetic Retinopathy Susceptibility: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of diabetes research · 2021Pooled it
- Polymorphisms of Inflammatory Cytokine Genes and Risk for Intracranial Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Yonsei medical journal · 2020Pooled it
- Rare variants of RNF213 and moyamoya/non-moyamoya intracranial artery stenosis/occlusion disease risk: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Association between apolipoprotein E genotype and cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2014Pooled it
- APE1 Asp148Glu polymorphism and lung cancer susceptibility.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2014Pooled it
- The NQO1 polymorphism C609T (Pro187Ser) and cancer susceptibility: a comprehensive meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2013Pooled it
- Genetic risk factors for intracranial aneurysms: a meta-analysis in more than 116,000 individuals.Neurology · 2013Pooled it
- A systematic review evaluating the methodological aspects of meta-analyses of genetic association studies in cancer research.European journal of epidemiology · 2010Pooled it
- Considerations for clinical curation, classification, and reporting of low-penetrance and low effect size variants associated with disease risk.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Reply to 'Comment on: The NQO1 polymorphism C609T (Pro187Ser) and cancer susceptibility: a comprehensive meta-analysis'.British journal of cancer · 2014Article
- The NQO1 C609T polymorphism and hepatocellular carcinoma risk.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2014Review
- Jumping on the Train of Personalized Medicine: A Primer for Non-Geneticist Clinicians: Part 2. Fundamental Concepts in Genetic Epidemiology.Current psychiatry reviews · 2014Article
- DNA Repair Gene Polymorphisms in the Nucleotide Excision Repair Pathway and Lung Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2011Article
- Meta-analysis of genetic association studies: magic tool or dangerous black box?European journal of epidemiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although there has been a rapid rise in the publication of meta-analyses of genetic association studies, little is known about their methodological quality. The authors reviewed the quality of 120 randomly selected genetic meta-analyses published between 2005 and 2007. Data extracted included issues of general relevance and other issues specific to genetic epidemiology. Quality was markedly poorer in the 26% of the meta-analyses that accompanied a report on a primary study. Such meta-analyses were predominantly published in specialist journals, and their quality was positively associated with the impact factor of the journal. Among the meta-analyses that did not accompany a primary study, Human Genome Epidemiology reviews tended to score better than the others, although the comparison was limited by relatively small numbers. Comparison of the overall quality with that of genetic meta-analyses published before 2000 showed improvement in both conduct and reporting. However, the quality of the handling of specific genetic issues remains disappointingly low. For a few key general quality issues, the authors compared their findings with findings in other fields of medicine and found that general quality was similar. On the basis of this review, the authors provide practical recommendations for the conduct and reporting of genetic meta-analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.