+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Disorganized Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: Time to Systematize the Conduct and Publication of These Study Overviews?



Disorganized Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: Time to Systematize the Conduct and Publication of These Study Overviews?



American Journal of Medicine 129(3): 339.E11-8



The number of meta-analyses published annually has increased more than 20-fold between 1994 (n = 386) and 2014 (n = 8203). In examining how much of this increase in meta-analysis publication has genuinely represented novel contributions to clinical medicine and public health, it became clear that there was an abundance of redundant and disorganized meta-analyses, creating confusion and generating considerable debate. Ironically, meta-analyses, which should prevent redundant research, have become a victim of it. Recently, 17 meta-analyses were published based on the results of only 3 randomized controlled trials that studied the role of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale for prevention of cryptogenic stroke. In our search of the published literature, we identified at least 10 topics that were the subject of 10 meta-analyses. In the context of overlapping meta-analyses, one questions what needs to be done to put this "runaway train" back on track. In this review we examine the practice of redundant meta-analyses and the reasons for its disturbing "popularity." The registration of systematic reviews should be mandatory in prospective registries, such as PROSPERO, and the PRISMA checklist should be updated to incorporate new evidence and mandate the reference of previously published reviews and rationale for any new study.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057637276

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26522792

DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.10.009


Related references

A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. Plos One 12(4): E0175213-E0175213, 2017

Publication bias in dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of Dermatological Science 82(2): 69-74, 2016

Association between statistical significance and time to publication among systematic reviews: a study protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation. Bmj Open 7(10): E018856-E018856, 2018

Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Statistics in Medicine 34(20): 2781-2793, 2016

An evaluation of harvest plots to display results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews: a cross-sectional study. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 15(): 91-91, 2016

PRISMA declaration: a proposal to improve the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medicina Clinica 135(11): 507-511, 2011

Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals. Anesthesia and Analgesia 123(4): 1018-1025, 2017

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Laboratory Animals 45(4): 225-230, 2012

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 39(2): 91-92, 2011

Not All Systematic Reviews are Systematic: A Meta-review of the Quality of Current Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Remote Monitoring in Heart Failure. Heart Lung & Circulation 22: S84-S85, 2013

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). Rofo 183(12): 1106-1110, 2012

Publication of methodological guidelines: The development of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials by the department of science and technology of the Brazilian ministry of health (DECIT/MOH). Value in Health 17(3): A206-A207, 2014

Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination. Bmc Medicine 13(): 82-82, 2015

PRISMA-Children (C) and PRISMA-Protocol for Children (P-C) Extensions: a study protocol for the development of guidelines for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of newborn and child health research. Bmj Open 6(4): E010270-E010270, 2016

Evaluation of methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews). Rofo 184(10): 937-940, 2013