Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25569783›Full record

ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2015

Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool.

Robin S T Ho, Xinyin Wu, Jinqiu Yuan, Siya Liu, Xin Lai, Samuel Y S Wong, Vincent C H Chung

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Robin S T HoJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Xinyin WuJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Jinqiu YuanJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Siya LiuJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Xin LaiJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Samuel Y S WongJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Vincent C H Chung1] Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong [2] Hong Kong Institute of Integrative Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeta-analysis (MA) of randomised trials is considered to be one of the best approaches for summarising high-quality evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatments. However, methodological flaws in MAs can reduce the validity of conclusions, subsequently impairing the quality of decision making.

aimsTo assess the methodological quality of MAs on COPD treatments.

methodsA cross-sectional study on MAs of COPD trials. MAs published during 2000-2013 were sampled from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool.

resultsSeventy-nine MAs were sampled. Only 18% considered the scientific quality of primary studies when formulating conclusions and 49% used appropriate meta-analytic methods to combine findings. The problems were particularly acute among MAs on pharmacological treatments. In 48% of MAs the authors did not report conflict of interest. Fifty-eight percent reported harmful effects of treatment. Publication bias was not assessed in 65% of MAs, and only 10% had searched non-English databases.

conclusionsThe methodological quality of the included MAs was disappointing. Consideration of scientific quality when formulating conclusions should be made explicit. Future MAs should improve on reporting conflict of interest and harm, assessment of publication bias, prevention of language bias and use of appropriate meta-analytic methods.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMultivariate AnalysisOutcome Assessment, Health CarePublication BiasPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID25569783
PMCPMC4498191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.