How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study.
Meta-epidemiological study
Methodological quality
Prevalence
Systematic review
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 04 2020
26 04 2020
Historique:
received:
12
12
2019
accepted:
12
04
2020
entrez:
28
4
2020
pubmed:
28
4
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting and methodology of the reviews. A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3-6) and the median number of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15-41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Nine reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (4 using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting and methodology of the reviews.
RESULTS
A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3-6) and the median number of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15-41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Nine reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (4 using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32336279
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-00975-3
pii: 10.1186/s12874-020-00975-3
pmc: PMC7184711
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
96Références
Res Synth Methods. 2019 Sep;10(3):476-483
pubmed: 30945438
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Sep 10;:
pubmed: 31499529
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2019 Mar;17(1):36-43
pubmed: 30239357
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
JAMA. 2018 Jan 23;319(4):388-396
pubmed: 29362800
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17(1):55-61
pubmed: 18286464
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 16;147(8):573-7
pubmed: 17938396
BMJ. 2015 Mar 16;350:h870
pubmed: 25775931
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Nov 27;8:79
pubmed: 19036172
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):147-53
pubmed: 26317388
BMJ Open. 2016 Jul 12;6(7):e010247
pubmed: 27406637
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Mar;119:92-99
pubmed: 31809847
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013 Nov 1;67(11):974-8
pubmed: 23963506
Res Synth Methods. 2017 Mar;8(1):5-18
pubmed: 28058794
BMJ. 2008 May 3;336(7651):995-8
pubmed: 18456631
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014 Aug 13;3(3):123-8
pubmed: 25197676
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2018 Oct;15(5):401-408
pubmed: 30051578