Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29783954›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations.

Monika Mueller, Maddalena D'Addario, Matthias Egger, Myriam Cevallos, Olaf Dekkers, Catrina Mugglin, Pippa Scott

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers, 64 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed, 64 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

136 citing papers in PubMed, 64 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Maternal depressive symptoms and mother-infant cosleeping (including room sharing and bedsharing): a systematic review.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Biosecurity measures reducingFrontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

76 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Monika MuellerInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Maddalena D'AddarioTranslational Research Center, University Hospital of Psychiatry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Matthias EggerInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Myriam CevallosCTU Bern, Clinical Trials Unit Bern, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Olaf DekkersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Catrina MugglinInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Pippa ScottDepartment of Pathology and Biomedical Science, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. pippa.scott@otago.ac.nz.ORCID 0000-0003-0849-1812

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies are frequently performed, but no widely accepted guidance is available at present. We performed a systematic scoping review of published methodological recommendations on how to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies.

methodsWe searched online databases and websites and contacted experts in the field to locate potentially eligible articles. We included articles that provided any type of recommendation on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. We extracted and summarised recommendations on pre-defined key items: protocol development, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, dealing with different study designs, risk of bias assessment, publication bias, heterogeneity, statistical analysis. We summarised recommendations by key item, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement as well as areas where recommendations were missing or scarce.

resultsThe searches identified 2461 articles of which 93 were eligible. Many recommendations for reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies were transferred from guidance developed for reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. Although there was substantial agreement in some methodological areas there was also considerable disagreement on how evidence synthesis of observational studies should be conducted. Conflicting recommendations were seen on topics such as the inclusion of different study designs in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the use of quality scales to assess the risk of bias, and the choice of model (e.g. fixed vs. random effects) for meta-analysis.

conclusionThere is a need for sound methodological guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, which critically considers areas in which there are conflicting recommendations.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicObservational Studies as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicGuidelines as TopicHumansPublicationsMeta-analysisMethodsObservational studiesRecommendationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29783954
PMCPMC5963098

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.