Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27004721›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2016

Meta-analyses including non-randomized studies of therapeutic interventions: a methodological review.

Timor Faber, Philippe Ravaud, Carolina Riveros, Elodie Perrodeau, Agnes Dechartres

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 17 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Phenobarbital treatment of alcohol withdrawal in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Cannabinoids for the Neuropsychiatric Symptoms of Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2020
    Pooled it
  13. Timing to perform VATS for traumatic-retained hemothorax (a systematic review and meta-analysis).European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2020
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Safety and effectiveness of antireflux surgery in obese patients.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2017
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Timor FaberCentre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, APHP, Paris, France.
Philippe RavaudCentre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, APHP, Paris, France.
Carolina RiverosCentre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, APHP, Paris, France.
Elodie PerrodeauCentre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, APHP, Paris, France.
Agnes DechartresCentre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, APHP, Paris, France. agnes.dechartres@aphp.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an increasing number of meta-analyses including data from non-randomized studies for therapeutic evaluation. We aimed to systematically assess the methods used in meta-analyses including non-randomized studies evaluating therapeutic interventions.

methodsFor this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE via PubMed, from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 for meta-analyses including at least one non-randomized study evaluating therapeutic interventions. Etiological assessments and meta-analyses with no comparison group were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process and meta-analysis methods.

resultsOne hundred eighty eight meta-analyses were selected: 119 included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) and 69 only NRSI. Half of the meta-analyses (n = 92, 49%) evaluated non-pharmacological interventions. "Grey literature" was searched for 72 meta-analyses (38%). An assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias was reported in 135 meta-analyses (72%) but this assessment considered the risk of confounding bias in only 33 meta-analyses (18%). In 130 meta-analyses (69%), the design of each NRSI was not clearly specified. In 131 (70%), whether crude or adjusted estimates of treatment effect for NRSI were combined was unclear or not reported. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed in 182 meta-analyses (97%) and further explored in 157 (84%). Reporting bias was assessed in 127 (68%).

conclusionsSome key methodological components of the systematic review process-search for grey literature, description of the type of NRSI included, assessment of risk of confounding bias and reporting of whether crude or adjusted estimates were combined-are not adequately carried out or reported in meta-analyses including NRSI.

Indexed as

Evaluation Studies as TopicPatient Outcome AssessmentControlled Clinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMaleQuality ControlRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch ReportMeta-analysesNon-randomized studiesReportingTherapeutic evaluation

Identifiers

PMID27004721
PMCPMC4804609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.