A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis

被引:57
作者
Higgins, Julian P. T. [1 ]
Lane, Peter W. [2 ,3 ]
Anagnostelis, Betsy [4 ]
Anzures-Cabrera, Judith [5 ]
Baker, Nigel F. [6 ]
Cappelleri, Joseph C. [7 ]
Haughie, Scott [8 ]
Hollis, Sally [9 ]
Lewis, Steff C. [10 ]
Moneuse, Patrick [11 ]
Whitehead, Anne [12 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Sch Social & Community Med, Bristol BS8 2PS, Avon, England
[2] Stat Consultancy Grp, Stevenage, Herts, England
[3] GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Stevenage, Herts, England
[4] UCL, Royal Free Hosp Med Lib, London, England
[5] Roche Prod Ltd, Biostat, Welwyn Garden City AL7 3AY, Herts, England
[6] Amgen Ltd, Cambridge, England
[7] Pfizer Inc, Biostat, Groton, CT 06340 USA
[8] Pfizer Global R&D, Primary Care Business Unit, Sandwich, Kent, England
[9] AstraZeneca, Global Medicines Dev, Macclesfield, Cheshire, England
[10] Univ Edinburgh, Sch Med, Ctr Populat Hlth Sci, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, Midlothian, Scotland
[11] Vifor Pharma, Biometr, Glattbrugg, Switzerland
[12] Univ Lancaster, Med & Pharmaceut Stat Res Unit, Lancaster, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
meta-analysis; systematic reviews; quality; bias; COCHRANE REVIEWS; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS;
D O I
10.1002/jrsm.1092
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background: Because meta-analyses are increasingly prevalent and cited in the medical literature, it is important that tools are available to assess their methodological quality. When performing an empirical study of the quality of published meta-analyses, we found that existing tools did not place a strong emphasis on statistical and interpretational issues. Methods: We developed a quality-assessment tool using existing materials and expert judgment as a starting point, followed by multiple iterations of input from our working group, piloting, and discussion. After having used the tool for our empirical study, agreement for four key items in the tool was measured using weighted kappa coefficients. Results: Our tool contained 43 items divided into four key areas (data sources, analysis of individual studies, meta-analysis methods, and interpretation), and each area ended with a summary question. We also produced guidance for completing the tool. Agreement between raters was fair to moderate. Conclusions: The tool should usefully inform subsequent initiatives to develop quality-assessment tools for meta-analysis. We advocate use of consensus between independent raters when assessing statistical appropriateness and adequacy of interpretation in meta-analyses. Copyright (C) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:351 / 366
页数:16
相关论文
共 11 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2012, 7 NICE DSU
[2]  
Higgins J., 2008, COCHRANE COLLABORATI
[3]   Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses - A comparison of COCHRANE reviews with articles published in paper-based journals [J].
Jadad, AR ;
Cook, DJ ;
Jones, A ;
Klassen, TP ;
Tugwell, P ;
Moher, M ;
Moher, D .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (03) :278-280
[4]   MEASUREMENT OF OBSERVER AGREEMENT FOR CATEGORICAL DATA [J].
LANDIS, JR ;
KOCH, GG .
BIOMETRICS, 1977, 33 (01) :159-174
[5]   Methodological quality of meta-analyses: matched-pairs comparison over time and between industry-sponsored and academic-sponsored reports [J].
Lane, Peter W. ;
Higgins, Julian P. T. ;
Anagnostelis, Betsy ;
Anzures-Cabrera, Judith ;
Baker, Nigel F. ;
Cappelleri, Joseph C. ;
Haughie, Scott ;
Hollis, Sally ;
Lewis, Steff C. ;
Moneuse, Patrick ;
Whitehead, Anne .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2013, 4 (04) :342-350
[6]   Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998 [J].
Olsen, O ;
Middleton, P ;
Ezzo, J ;
Gotzsche, P ;
Hadhazy, V ;
Herxheimer, A ;
Kleijnen, J ;
McIntosh, H .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7317) :829-832
[7]  
OXMAN AD, 1988, CAN MED ASSOC J, V138, P697
[8]   Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences [J].
Patsopoulos, NA ;
Analatos, AA ;
Ioannidis, JPA .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2005, 293 (19) :2362-2366
[9]   A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals [J].
Shea, B ;
Moher, D ;
Graham, I ;
Pham, B ;
Tugwell, P .
EVALUATION & THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2002, 25 (01) :116-129
[10]   Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews [J].
Shea, Beverley J. ;
Grimshaw, Jeremy M. ;
Wells, George A. ;
Boers, Maarten ;
Andersson, Neil ;
Hamel, Candyce ;
Porter, Ashley C. ;
Tugwell, Peter ;
Moher, David ;
Bouter, Lex M. .
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2007, 7 (1)