Methodological steps used by authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.
BMC Med Res Methodol
; 19(1): 164, 2019 07 26.
Article
in En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-31349805
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
The quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MAs) depends on the extent of the methods used. We investigated the methodological steps used by authors of SR/MAs of clinical trials via an author survey.METHODS:
We conducted an email-based cross-sectional study by contacting corresponding authors of SR/MAs that were published in 2015 and 2016 and retrieved through the PubMed database. The 27-item questionnaire was developed to study the methodological steps used by authors when conducting a SR/MA and the demographic characteristics of the respondent. Besides the demographic characteristics, methodological questions regarding the source, extraction and synthesis of data were included.RESULTS:
From 10,292 emails sent, 384 authors responded and were included in the final analysis. Manual searches were carried out by 69.2% of authors, while 87.3% do updated searches, 49.2% search grey literature, 74.9% use the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment, 69.8% assign more than two reviewers for data extraction, 20.5% use digital software to extract data from graphs, 57.9% use raw data in the meta-analysis, and 43.8% meta-analyze both adjusted and non-adjusted data. There was a positive correlation of years of experience in conducting of SR/MAs with both searching grey literature (P = 0.0003) and use of adjusted and non-adjusted data (P = 0.006).CONCLUSIONS:
Many authors still do not carry out many of the vital methodological steps to be taken when performing any SR/MA. The experience of the authors in SR/MAs is highly correlated with use of the recommended tips for SR/MA conduct. The optimal methodological approach for researchers conducting a SR/MA should be standardized.Key words
Full text:
1
Database:
MEDLINE
Main subject:
Research Design
/
Meta-Analysis as Topic
/
Clinical Trials as Topic
/
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Type of study:
Guideline
/
Observational_studies
/
Prevalence_studies
/
Risk_factors_studies
/
Systematic_reviews
Limits:
Humans
Language:
En
Year:
2019
Type:
Article