For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
11
views
11
references
 Top references
cited by
121
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      132
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research

      other
      Author(s): ,
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: Evidence-Based Medicine
      Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
      Keywords: epidemiology

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Published research should be reported to evidence users with clarity and transparency that facilitate optimal appraisal and use of evidence and allow replication by other researchers. Guidelines for such reporting are available for several types of studies but not for meta-epidemiological methodology studies. Meta-epidemiological studies adopt a systematic review or meta-analysis approach to examine the impact of certain characteristics of clinical studies on the observed effect and provide empirical evidence for hypothesised associations. The unit of analysis in meta-epidemiological studies is a study, not a patient. The outcomes of meta-epidemiological studies are usually not clinical outcomes. In this guideline, we adapt items from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) to fit the context of meta-epidemiological studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature.

          Mohammad Hassan Murad, Victor Montori, John Ioannidis … (2014)
          Clinical decisions should be based on the totality of the best evidence and not the results of individual studies. When clinicians apply the results of a systematic review or meta-analysis to patient care, they should start by evaluating the credibility of the methods of the systematic review, ie, the extent to which these methods have likely protected against misleading results. Credibility depends on whether the review addressed a sensible clinical question; included an exhaustive literature search; demonstrated reproducibility of the selection and assessment of studies; and presented results in a useful manner. For reviews that are sufficiently credible, clinicians must decide on the degree of confidence in the estimates that the evidence warrants (quality of evidence). Confidence depends on the risk of bias in the body of evidence; the precision and consistency of the results; whether the results directly apply to the patient of interest; and the likelihood of reporting bias. Shared decision making requires understanding of the estimates of magnitude of beneficial and harmful effects, and confidence in those estimates.
          Article 0 comments Cited 133 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research.

            Christopher Bartlett, Peter Jüni, Doug G. Altman … (2002)
            Biases in systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be examined in 'meta-epidemiological' studies, in which the influence of trial characteristics such as measures of study quality on treatment effect estimates is explored. Published studies to date have analysed data from collections of meta-analyses with binary outcomes, using logistic regression models that assume that there is no between- or within-meta-analysis heterogeneity. Using data from a study of publication bias (39 meta-analyses, 394 published and 88 unpublished trials) and language bias (29 meta-analyses, 297 English language trials and 52 non-English language trials), we compare results from logistic regression models, with and without robust standard errors to allow for clustering on meta-analysis, with results using a 'meta-meta-analytic' approach that can allow for between- and within-meta-analysis heterogeneity. We also consider how to allow for the confounding effects of different trial characteristics. We show that both within- and between meta-analysis heterogeneity may be of importance in the analysis of meta-epidemiological studies, and that confounding exists between the effects of publication status and trial quality. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Article 0 comments Cited 113 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature

              Zainab Samaan, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Daisy Kosa … (2013)
              Background Reporting guidelines have been available for the past 17 years since the inception of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. These guidelines were developed to improve the quality of reporting of studies in medical literature. Despite the widespread availability of these guidelines, the quality of reporting of medical literature remained suboptimal. In this study, we assess the current adherence practice to reporting guidelines; determine key factors associated with better adherence to these guidelines; and provide recommendations to enhance adherence to reporting guidelines for future studies. Methods We undertook a systematic scoping review of systematic reviews of adherence to reporting guidelines across different clinical areas and study designs. We searched four electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline) from January 1996 to September 2012. Studies were included if they addressed adherence to one of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND), Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). A protocol for this study was devised. A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors in duplicate. This study reporting follows the PRISMA guidelines. Results Our search retrieved 5159 titles, of which 50 were eligible. Overall, 86.0% of studies reported suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with better adherence included journal impact factor and endorsement of guidelines, publication date, funding source, multisite studies, pharmacological interventions and larger studies. Conclusion Reporting guidelines in the clinical literature are important to improve the standards of reporting of clinical studies; however, adherence to these guidelines remains suboptimal. Action is therefore needed to enhance the adherence to these standards. Strategies to enhance adherence include journal editorial policies endorsing these guidelines.
              Article 0 comments Cited 67 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Evid Based Med
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Evid Based Med
                Journal ID (hwp): ebmed
                Journal ID (publisher-id): ebm
                Title: Evidence-Based Medicine
                Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                ISSN (Print): 1356-5524
                ISSN (Electronic): 1473-6810
                Publication date (Print): August 2017
                Publication date (Electronic): 12 July 2017
                Volume: 22
                Issue: 4
                Pages: 139-142
                Affiliations
                [1] departmentEvidence-Based Practice Center , Mayo Clinic , Rochester, Minnesota, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Mohammad Hassan Murad, Evidence-based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; murad.mohammad@ 123456mayo.edu
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5502-5975
                Article
                Publisher ID: ebmed-2017-110713
                DOI: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713
                PMC ID: 5537553
                PubMed ID: 28701372
                SO-VID: 413e2c9c-b1a6-4ab2-adf0-e3217e7fb481
                Copyright © © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                Date accepted : 17 May 2017
                Categories
                Subject: EBM Primer
                Subject: 1506
                Custom metadata
                special-feature unlocked

                Keywords: epidemiology
                Data availability:
                Keywords: epidemiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content132

                See all similar

                Cited by113

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors636

                See all reference authors