The reporting quality of meta-epidemiological studies needs substantial improvement: a research on research study.
Interrupted time-series analysis
Meta-epidemiological studies
Reporting quality
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Sep 2024
28 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
07
07
2024
accepted:
11
09
2024
medline:
29
9
2024
pubmed:
29
9
2024
entrez:
28
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Meta-epidemiological research plays a vital role in providing empirical evidence needed to develop methodological manuals and tools, but the reporting quality has not been comprehensively assessed, and the influence of reporting guidelines remains unclear. The current study aims to evaluate the reporting quality of meta-epidemiological studies, assess the impact of reporting guidelines, and identify factors influencing reporting quality. We searched PubMed and Embase for meta-epidemiological studies. The reporting quality of these studies was assessed for adherence to established reporting guidelines. Two researchers independently screened the studies and assessed the quality of the included studies. Time-series segmented linear regression was used to evaluate changes in reporting quality over time, while beta-regression analysis was performed to identify factors significantly associated with reporting quality. We initially identified 1720 articles, of which 125 meta-epidemiological studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 65 (52%) had low reporting quality, 60 (48%) had moderate quality, and none achieved high quality. Of the 24 items derived from established reporting guidelines, 4 had poor adherence, 13 had moderate adherence, and 7 had high adherences. High journal impact factor (≥ 10) (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.80; P = 0.003) and protocol registration (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with better reporting quality. The publication of the reporting guideline did not significantly increase the mean reporting quality score (- 0.53, 95% CI: - 3.37, 2.31; P = 0.67) or the trend (- 0.38, 95% CI: - 1.02, 0.26; P = 0.20). Our analysis showed suboptimal reporting quality in meta-epidemiological studies, with no improvement post-2017 guidelines. This potential shortcoming could hinder stakeholders' ability to draw reliable conclusions from these studies. While preregistration could reduce reporting bias, its adoption remains low. Registration platforms could consider creating tailored types for meta-epidemiological research, and journals need to adopt more proactive measures to enforce reporting standards.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Meta-epidemiological research plays a vital role in providing empirical evidence needed to develop methodological manuals and tools, but the reporting quality has not been comprehensively assessed, and the influence of reporting guidelines remains unclear. The current study aims to evaluate the reporting quality of meta-epidemiological studies, assess the impact of reporting guidelines, and identify factors influencing reporting quality.
METHODS
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase for meta-epidemiological studies. The reporting quality of these studies was assessed for adherence to established reporting guidelines. Two researchers independently screened the studies and assessed the quality of the included studies. Time-series segmented linear regression was used to evaluate changes in reporting quality over time, while beta-regression analysis was performed to identify factors significantly associated with reporting quality.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We initially identified 1720 articles, of which 125 meta-epidemiological studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 65 (52%) had low reporting quality, 60 (48%) had moderate quality, and none achieved high quality. Of the 24 items derived from established reporting guidelines, 4 had poor adherence, 13 had moderate adherence, and 7 had high adherences. High journal impact factor (≥ 10) (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.80; P = 0.003) and protocol registration (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with better reporting quality. The publication of the reporting guideline did not significantly increase the mean reporting quality score (- 0.53, 95% CI: - 3.37, 2.31; P = 0.67) or the trend (- 0.38, 95% CI: - 1.02, 0.26; P = 0.20).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis showed suboptimal reporting quality in meta-epidemiological studies, with no improvement post-2017 guidelines. This potential shortcoming could hinder stakeholders' ability to draw reliable conclusions from these studies. While preregistration could reduce reporting bias, its adoption remains low. Registration platforms could consider creating tailored types for meta-epidemiological research, and journals need to adopt more proactive measures to enforce reporting standards.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39342302
doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02661-7
pii: 10.1186/s13643-024-02661-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
244Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343: d5928.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928
pubmed: 22008217
pmcid: 3196245
Sterne JAC, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta-epidemiological’ research. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1513–24.
doi: 10.1002/sim.1184
pubmed: 12111917
Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook For Systematic Reviews Of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane. 2022; www.training.cochrane.org/handbook . Accessed 25 Jun 2024.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366: l4898.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Saldanha IJ, Adam GP, Bañez LL, Bass EB, Berliner E, Devine B, et al. Inclusion of nonrandomized studies of interventions in systematic reviews of interventions: updated guidance from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Effective Health Care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;152:300–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.015
pubmed: 36245131
pmcid: 10777810
Cuello-Garcia CA, Santesso N, Morgan RL, Verbeek J, Thayer K, Ansari MT, et al. GRADE guidance 24 optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;142:200–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.026
pubmed: 34800676
pmcid: 8982640
Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Faber T, Ravaud P. Empirical evaluation of which trial characteristics are associated with treatment effect estimates. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;77:24–37.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.005
pubmed: 27140444
Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evidence Based Medicine. 2017;22(4):139–42.
doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713
pubmed: 28701372
pmcid: 5537553
Groves T. Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research. BMJ. 2008;337(7661): a718.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.a718
pubmed: 18614488
Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010;8:24.
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24
pubmed: 20420659
pmcid: 2874506
Xu C, Liu Y, Jia P-L, Li L, Liu T-Z, Cheng L-L, et al. The methodological quality of dose-response meta-analyses needed substantial improvement: a cross-sectional survey and proposed recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;107:1–11.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.007
pubmed: 30445166
Hartmann DP, Gottman JM, Jones RR, Gardner W, Kazdin AE, Vaught RS. Interrupted time-series analysis and its application to behavioral data. J Appl Behav Anal. 2013;13(4):543–59.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.1980.13-543
Zhang F, Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Ross-Degnan D. Methods for estimating confidence intervals in interrupted time series analyses of health interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(2):143–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.007
pubmed: 19010644
Ferrari S, Cribari-Neto F. Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. J Appl Stat. 2004;31(7):799–815.
doi: 10.1080/0266476042000214501
Gao Y, Cai Y, Yang K, Liu M, Shi S, Chen J, et al. Methodological and reporting quality in non-Cochrane systematic review updates could be improved: a comparative study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;119:36–46.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.012
pubmed: 31759063
Mei F, Chen F, Hu K, Gao Q, Zhao L, Shang Y, et al. Registration and reporting quality of systematic reviews on surgical intervention: a meta-epidemiological study. J Surg Res. 2022;277:200–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.04.026
pubmed: 35500515
Mehrazmay A, Karambakhsh A, Salesi M. Reporting quality assessment of randomized controlled trials published in nephrology urology monthly journal. Nephro-urology monthly. 2015;7(4): e28752.
doi: 10.5812/numonthly.28752
pubmed: 26528446
pmcid: 4623776
Chen YP, Chen L, Li WF, Lee AWM, Vermorken JB, Wee J, et al. Reporting quality of randomized, controlled trials evaluating combined chemoradiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(1):170–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.214
pubmed: 28586958
Dotto L, Dos Santos MBF, Sarkis-Onofre R. Reporting quality of scoping reviews in dental public health. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23(1):53.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01863-2
pubmed: 36849932
pmcid: 9972695
Woolf B, Di Cara N, Moreno-Stokoe C, Skrivankova V, Drax K, Higgins JPT, et al. Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform. Int J Epidemiol. 2022;51(6):1943–56.
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyac074
pubmed: 35383846
pmcid: 9749715
Villacampa G, Patel D, Zheng H, McAleese J, Rekowski J, Solovyeva O, et al. Assessing the reporting quality of early phase dose-finding trial protocols: a methodological review. eClinicalMedicine. 2023;60:102020.
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102020
pubmed: 37261325
pmcid: 10227378
Xue X, Tang X, Liu S, Yu T, Chen Z, Chen N, et al. A scoping review on the methodological and reporting quality of scoping reviews in China. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024;24(1):45.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02172-y
pubmed: 38389063
pmcid: 10882808
Andaur Navarro CL, Damen JAA, Takada T, Nijman SWJ, Dhiman P, Ma J, et al. Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1):12.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01469-6
pubmed: 35026997
pmcid: 8759172
Zhao R, Zhang W, Zhang Z, He C, Xu R, Tang X, et al. Evaluation of reporting quality of cohort studies using real-world data based on RECORD: systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23(1):152.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01960-2
pubmed: 37386371
pmcid: 10308622
Liu C, Qi Y, Liu X, Chen M, Xiong Y, Huang S, et al. The reporting of prognostic prediction models for obstetric care was poor: a cross-sectional survey of 10-year publications. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23(1):9.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01832-9
pubmed: 36635634
pmcid: 9835271
Xu C, Cheng L-L, Liu Y, Jia P-L, Gao M-Y, Zhang C. Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):78.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0715-y
pubmed: 30975073
pmcid: 6460643
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339: b2535.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535
pubmed: 19622551
pmcid: 2714657
Papageorgiou SN. Overview provides insights on the current status and future of meta-epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;77:11–2.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.05.001
pubmed: 27189429
Puljak L, Makaric ZL, Buljan I, Pieper D. What is a meta-epidemiological study? Analysis of published literature indicated heterogeneous study designs and definitions. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2020;9(7):497–508.
doi: 10.2217/cer-2019-0201
pubmed: 32372658
Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2012;344: e4178.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4178
pubmed: 22730543
pmcid: 3382226
Banno M, Tsujimoto Y, Kataoka Y. The majority of reporting guidelines are not developed with the Delphi method: a systematic review of reporting guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;124:50–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.010
pubmed: 32302679
Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2): e1000217.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
pubmed: 20169112
pmcid: 2821895
Wieseler B, Kerekes MF, Vervoelgyi V, McGauran N, Kaiser T. Impact of document type on reporting quality of clinical drug trials: a comparison of registry reports, clinical study reports, and journal publications. BMJ. 2012;344: d8141.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.d8141
pubmed: 22214759
Minh LHN, Le HH, Tawfik GM, Makram OM, Tieu T, Tai LLT, et al. Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):93.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02210-8
pubmed: 37269021
pmcid: 10239197
Simera I, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF, Hoey J. Guidelines for reporting health research: the EQUATOR Network’s survey of guideline authors. PLoS Med. 2008;5(6): e139.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050139
pubmed: 18578566
pmcid: 2443184
Howick J, Webster R, Knottnerus JA, Moher D. Do overly complex reporting guidelines remove the focus from good clinical trials? BMJ. 2021;374: n1793.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1793
pubmed: 34400403