Assessing the Reporting and Scientific Quality of Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials of Treatments for Anxiety Disorders

Bereza, Basil G; Machado, Márcio; Einarson, Thomas R.

doi:10.1345/aph.1l204

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are also similar to those reported by Bereza and colleagues [31] in the only other review of meta-analyses of anxiety disorder RCTs. This is in spite of methodologic differences between the reviews, such as the inclusion of pooled analyses and pediatric meta-analyses by Bereza et al [31] and their failure to include any Cochrane reviews in their analysis. The results of this review accordingly support the sentiment of other authors that there is scope for improving both the conduct of meta-analyses and the way in which they are reported.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The overall scores of the treatment meta-analyses included in this review on the QUOROM and ISQRO are consistent with the range of results (QUOROM, 9-12.3; ISQRO, 2.7-4.7) reported by other studies of the quality of meta-analyses of RCTs in the health sciences [4,21,27,29,30]. These results are also similar to those reported by Bereza and colleagues [31] in the only other review of meta-analyses of anxiety disorder RCTs. This is in spite of methodologic differences between the reviews, such as the inclusion of pooled analyses and pediatric meta-analyses by Bereza et al [31] and their failure to include any Cochrane reviews in their analysis.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses

Ipser

Stein²

2009

Curr Psychiatry Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meta-analyses are seen as representing the pinnacle of a hierarchy of evidence used to inform clinical practice. Therefore, the potential importance of differences in the rigor with which they are conducted and reported warrants consideration. In this review, we use standardized instruments to describe the scientific and reporting quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of the treatment of anxiety disorders. We also use traditional and novel metrics of article impact to assess the influence of meta-analyses across a range of research fields in the anxiety disorders. Overall, although the meta-analyses that we examined had some flaws, their quality of reporting was generally acceptable. Neither the scientific nor reporting quality of the meta-analyses was predicted by any of the impact metrics. The finding that treatment meta-analyses were cited less frequently than quantitative reviews of studies in current "hot spots" of research (ie, genetics, imaging) points to the multifactorial nature of citation patterns. A list of the meta-analyses included in this review is available on an evidence-based website of anxiety and trauma-related disorders.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses

Ipser

Stein²

2009

Curr Psychiatry Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bereza et al56 and Junhua et al70 reported that there was a need to improve the quality of reporting of reviews, while Shea et al82 concluded that the quality of Cochrane musculoskeletal systematic reviews was good. Hemels et al68 used only the QUOROM checklist and they concluded that the quality of meta-analyses in studies on major depressive disorder was marginally acceptable.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature

Samaan¹,

Mbuagbaw²,

Kosa³

et al. 2013

JMDH

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundReporting guidelines have been available for the past 17 years since the inception of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. These guidelines were developed to improve the quality of reporting of studies in medical literature. Despite the widespread availability of these guidelines, the quality of reporting of medical literature remained suboptimal. In this study, we assess the current adherence practice to reporting guidelines; determine key factors associated with better adherence to these guidelines; and provide recommendations to enhance adherence to reporting guidelines for future studies.MethodsWe undertook a systematic scoping review of systematic reviews of adherence to reporting guidelines across different clinical areas and study designs. We searched four electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline) from January 1996 to September 2012. Studies were included if they addressed adherence to one of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND), Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). A protocol for this study was devised. A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors in duplicate. This study reporting follows the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsOur search retrieved 5159 titles, of which 50 were eligible. Overall, 86.0% of studies reported suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with better adherence included journal impact factor and endorsement of guidelines, publication date, funding source, multisite studies, pharmacological interventions and larger studies.ConclusionReporting guidelines in the clinical literature are important to improve the standards of reporting of clinical studies; however, adherence to these guidelines remains suboptimal. Action is therefore needed to enhance the adherence to these standards. Strategies to enhance adherence include journal editorial policies endorsing these guidelines.

show abstract

“…Dozens of systematic reviews have explored the extent of adherence to different reporting guidelines in some areas of health research. 5–9 Samaan et al 10 went one step further and performed a systematic review of systematic reviews assessing adherence to reporting guidelines. As they considered a broad range of clinical areas and study designs since the creation of the CONSORT Statement, their results provided a global picture of compliance with reporting guidelines in health research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As mentioned, several reviews have analysed the quality of reporting in different clinical areas and for different studies, 5–10 but no scoping review investigating what actions have been taken or suggested in order to improve compliance with reporting guidelines has been performed so far. Given the low levels of completeness of reporting in health research observed 10 and the need of taking further actions to mitigate this problem, we consider that performing such a scoping review is warranted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol

Blanco¹,

Kirkham

Altman

et al. 2017

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThere is evidence that the use of some reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, is associated with improved completeness of reporting in health research. However, the current levels of adherence to reporting guidelines are suboptimal. Over the last few years, several actions aiming to improve compliance with reporting guidelines have been taken and proposed. We will conduct a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research that have been evaluated or suggested, in order to inform future interventions.Methods and analysisOur review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. We will search for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Moreover, we will carry out lateral searches from the reference lists of the included studies, as well as from the lists of articles citing the included ones. One reviewer will screen the full list, which will be randomly split into two halves and independently screened by the other two reviewers. Two reviewers will perform data extraction independently. Discrepancies will be solved through discussion. In addition, this search strategy will be supplemented by a grey literature search. The interventions found will be classified as assessed or suggested, as well as according to different criteria, in relation to their target (journal policies, journal editors, authors, reviewers, funders, ethical boards or others) or the research stage at which they are performed (design, conducting, reporting or peer review). Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed.Ethics and disseminationA paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This scoping review will contribute to a better understanding and a broader perspective on how the problem of adhering better to reporting guidelines has been tackled so far. This could be a major first step towards developing future strategies to improve compliance with reporting guidelines in health research.

show abstract

Assessing the Reporting and Scientific Quality of Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials of Treatments for Anxiety Disorders

Abstract: Reporting/scientific quality was considered less than fair-to-good. Stakeholders should strive for higher scientific quality of meta-analyses.

Cited by 10 publications

References 34 publications

A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses

A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses

A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature

Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About