Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30497389›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Improving the quality of reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey.

Chang Xu, Tong-Zu Liu, Peng-Li Jia, Yu Liu, Ling Li, Liang-Liang Cheng, Xin Sun

Abstract read
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 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Chang XuChinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and CREAT group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center, 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Tong-Zu LiuDepartment of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Peng-Li JiaSchool of Management, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China.
Yu LiuGansu Provincial Women and Children Hospital, Gansu, China.
Ling LiChinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and CREAT group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center, 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Liang-Liang ChengWest China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Xin SunChinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and CREAT group, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center, 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China. sunx79@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) is a useful tool to investigate potential dose-response relationship between certain exposure or intervention and the outcome of interest. A large number of DRMAs have been published in the past several years. However, the standard of reporting for such studies is not known.

methodsMedline, Embase, and Wiley Library were searched for systematic reviews with DRMAs (SR-DRMAs) published from January 2011 to July 2017. We used the combination of PRISMA and MOOSE statements, containing 33 items, to assess the reporting of included SR-DRMAs. The adherence of reporting was defined as the proportion of SR-DRMAs meeting the reporting requirement of an item. We explored the association between five pre-specified variables with the total score of reporting on both fully as well as each domain of the checklist.

resultsIn total, 529 SR-DRMAs were eligible. Ten out of 33 items were under reported, and this mainly refers to the methods domain: only a small proportion of SR-DRMAs stated whether a review protocol existed (45, 8.5%); clarified the qualifications of searchers (1.7%); presented full electronic search strategy (25.9%); described any effort to include all available studies (22.9%), described methods for languages other than English (27.4%), and stated the process for selecting studies (20.2%). Multiple regression analysis suggested that studies with more authors (regression coefficient = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.35, 1.20; P <  0.001), published more recently (regression coefficient = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.47; trend P <  0.001), used reporting guideline (regression coefficient = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.32; P <  0.001), and involvement of methodologist (regression coefficient = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.32; P <  0.001) were associated with higher score of reporting. Further regression suggested that the improvement on the quality mainly concentrated on the methods and results domains.

conclusionsThe reporting of SR-DRMAs needs to be further improved, particularly in the issues refer to the methods. The quality of reporting may improve when involving more authors and methodologists and employing any reporting guidelines.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesData AccuracyData CollectionDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePeriodicals as TopicResearch ReportCross-sectional surveyDose-response meta-analysisReporting quality

Identifiers

PMID30497389
PMCPMC6267919

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.