ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2017
Characteristics and Methodological Quality of Meta-Analyses on Hypertension Treatments-A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Pooled it
- Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methodological quality of meta-analyses on hypertension treatments can affect treatment decision-making. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study to investigate the methodological quality of meta-analyses on hypertension treatments. One hundred and fifty-eight meta-analyses were identified. Overall, methodological quality was unsatisfactory in the following aspects: comprehensive reporting of financial support (1.9%), provision of included and excluded lists of studies (22.8%), inclusion of grey literature (27.2%), and inclusion of protocols (32.9%). The 126 non-Cochrane meta-analyses had poor performance on almost all the methodological items. Non-Cochrane meta-analyses focused on nonpharmacologic treatments were more likely to consider scientific quality of included studies when making conclusions. The 32 Cochrane meta-analyses generally had good methodological quality except for comprehensive reporting of the sources of support. These results highlight the need for cautious interpretation of these meta-analyses, especially among physicians and policy makers when guidelines are formulated. Future meta-analyses should pay attention to improving these methodological aspects.
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.