Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27336624›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Is the Best Evidence Good Enough: Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Meta-Analyses on Depression.

Yingbo Zhu, Lin Fan, Han Zhang, Meijuan Wang, Xinchun Mei, Jiaojiao Hou, Zhongyong Shi, Yu Shuai, Yuan Shen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

9 authors.

Yingbo ZhuDepartment of Psychiatry, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Lin FanDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Han ZhangDepartment of Hepatic Surgery, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Meijuan WangDepartment of Psychiatry, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xinchun MeiDepartment of Psychiatry, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jiaojiao HouDepartment of Psychiatry, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Zhongyong ShiDepartment of Psychiatry, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yu ShuaiDepartment of Psychiatry, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yuan ShenDepartment of Psychiatry, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe quality of meta-analyses (MAs) on depression remains uninvestigated.

objectiveTo assess the overall reporting and methodological qualities of MAs on depression and to explore potential factors influencing both qualities.

methodsMAs investigating epidemiology and interventions for depression published in the most recent year (2014-2015) were selected from PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library. The characteristics of the included studies were collected and the total and per-item quality scores of the included studies were calculated based on the two checklists. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were used to explore the potential factors influencing the quality of the articles.

resultsA total of 217 MAs from 74 peer-reviewed journals were included. The mean score of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was 23.0 of 27 and mean score of Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was 8.3 of 11. Items assessing registration and protocol (14.2%, 37/217) in PRISMA and item requiring a full list of included and excluded studies (16.1%, 40/217) in AMSTAR had poorer adherences than other items. The MAs that included only RCTs, pre-registered, had five more authors or authors from Cochrane groups and the MAs found negative results had better reporting and methodological qualities.

conclusionsThe reporting and methodological qualities of MAs on depression remained to be improved. Design of included studies, characteristics of authors and pre-registration in PROSPERO database are important factors influencing quality of MAs in the field of depression.

Indexed as

DepressionMeta-Analysis as TopicPublicationsFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumans

Identifiers

PMID27336624
PMCPMC4919061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.