Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination

Abstract

BackgroundAs the number of systematic reviews is growing rapidly, we systematically investigate whether meta-analyses published in leading medical journals present an outline of available evidence by referring to previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews.MethodsWe searched PubMed for recent meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high impact factor journals. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified with electronic searches of keywords and by searching reference sections. We analyzed the number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that were cited, described and discussed in each recent meta-analysis. Moreover, we investigated publication characteristics that potentially influence the referencing practices.ResultsWe identified 52 recent meta-analyses and 242 previous meta-analyses on the same topics. Of these, 66% of identified previous meta-analyses were cited, 36% described, and only 20% discussed by recent meta-analyses. The probability of citing a previous meta-analysis was positively associated with its publication in a journal with a higher impact factor (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.10) and more recent publication year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.37). Additionally, the probability of a previous study being described by the recent meta-analysis was inversely associated with the concordance of results (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.88), and the probability of being discussed was increased for previous studies that employed meta-analytic methods (odds ratio, 32.36; 95% confidence interval, 2.00 to 522.85).ConclusionsMeta-analyses on pharmacological treatments do not consistently refer to and discuss findings of previous meta-analyses on the same topic. Such neglect can lead to research waste and be confusing for readers. Journals should make the discussion of related meta-analyses mandatory.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0317-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Risk–Benefit Profile of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in Established Therapeutic Indications: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Observational Studies

“…We collapsed key findings from previous systematic reviews and observational studies, an approach that is only rarely performed in the literature [74]. In fact, the majority of recent meta-analyses actually neglect previous systematic reviews on the same topic [75].…”

The flood of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of acupuncture

“…Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses definitely form the basis for evidence‐based decision making and their roles have been significantly recognised in the past few decades. Now we are living in a flood of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses and researchers in this field will certainly agree with this flood phenomenon or the publication of multiple systematic reviews on the same topic. Acupuncture research is not an exception and many have expressed these concerns …”

Adherence to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration policies in oncology journals: a cross-sectional review

“…Poor methodological quality and incomplete reporting of published research affects clinical decision-making1–3 and contributes to research waste 4. Reporting guidelines (RG) offer one solution by promoting transparency and ensuring that key methodological safeguards are fully reported 5.…”