Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38129958›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2024

Overadjustment bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of socio-economic inequalities in health: a meta-research scoping review.

Anita van Zwieten, Jiahui Dai, Fiona M Blyth, Germaine Wong, Saman Khalatbari-Soltani

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Pain and the aging brain: beyond association toward action.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Anita van ZwietenSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4564-5825
Jiahui DaiSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Fiona M BlythSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Germaine WongSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8422-7269
Saman Khalatbari-SoltaniSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8437-1906

Funding

Australian Research Council Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOveradjustment bias occurs when researchers adjust for an explanatory variable on the causal pathway from exposure to outcome, which leads to biased estimates of the causal effect of the exposure. This meta-research review aimed to examine how previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of socio-economic inequalities in health have managed overadjustment bias.

methodsWe searched Medline and Embase until 16 April 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies on associations between individual-level socio-economic position and health outcomes in any population. A set of criteria were developed to examine methodological approaches to overadjustment bias adopted by included reviews (rated Yes/No/Somewhat/Unclear).

resultsEighty-four reviews were eligible (47 systematic reviews, 37 meta-analyses). Regarding approaches to overadjustment, whereas 73% of the 84 reviews were rated as Yes for clearly defining exposures and outcomes, all other approaches were rated as Yes for <55% of reviews; for instance, 5% clearly defined confounders and mediators, 2% constructed causal diagrams and 35% reported adjusted variables for included studies. Whereas only 2% included overadjustment in risk of bias assessment, 54% included confounding. Of the 37 meta-analyses, 16% conducted sensitivity analyses related to overadjustment.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that overadjustment bias has received insufficient consideration in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of socio-economic inequalities in health. This is a critical issue given that overadjustment bias is likely to result in biased estimates of health inequalities and accurate estimates are needed to inform public health interventions. There is a need to highlight overadjustment bias in review guidelines.

Indexed as

Public HealthBiasCausalityHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicSocioeconomic FactorsSystematic Reviews as Topicbiasconfounding biasEpidemiologyhealth disparitieshealth equityhealth inequalitiesmeta-analysismeta-researchoveradjustment biassystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38129958
PMCPMC10859162

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.