A call for consensus guidelines on classification and reporting of methodological studies

Abstract

Reply to letter to the editor ''Forrest plots or caterpillar plots?'' Caterpillar plotda slight modification to forest plot We thank Dr Hurley's comment [1] on our tutorial [2]. A caterpillar plot is essentially a slight modification to a forest plot, with the point estimates ordered by their magnitudes. We agree with Dr Hurley that sorting the point estimates could (1) aid in the easy visualization of heterogeneity for effect sizes among the included individual studies and (2) help readers with quick intake of the 95% confidence intervals of individual studies by presenting the caterpillar legs. This type of modification to a forest plot can be especially helpful when the number of included individual studies is large and when the focus is on investigation of the general pattern of point estimates among the included studies. Drawing caterpillar plots can be easily carried out because the codes or packages are readily available in some tools such as SAS, STATA, and R, to mention a few.Nevertheless, caterpillar plots are not so popularly used as forest plots. Potential reasons include that (1) only point estimates can be ordered in caterpillar plots (i.e., we cannot sort the individual studies by year of publication or by authors' last names to explore other patterns), (2) many metaanalytical researches use a forest plot aiming to make the individual point estimates and studies fully discernible, rather than assessing the pattern of point estimates across all the included studies, and (3) the software recommended by Cochrane collaboration (i.e., RevMan) cannot produce a caterpillar plot. These issues would therefore impair the possible applicability of caterpillar plots in the current literature. And it remains largely unknown about whether caterpillar plots can be widely accepted and applied in health research.

Reporting of methodological studies in health research: a protocol for the development of the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist (MISTIC)

“…We continue to contact journal editors for their endorsement, and encourage researchers to reach out to us about this work, as we have done previously. 34 We will also encourage user feedback to inform future updates of the guideline as needed. These approaches are informed by our collective experience in developing and disseminating health research guidelines.…”

“…The diversity in names compromises training and educational activities, 33 and it makes it difficult for end-users (eg, clinical researchers, guideline developers) to search for, identify and use these studies. 34 35 …”