Dataset Information

Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess how common it is to have multiple overlapping meta-analyses of randomized trials published on the same topic.

Design

Survey of published meta-analyses.

Data sources

PubMed.

Study selection and methods

Meta-analyses published in 2010 were identified, and 5% of them were randomly selected. We further selected those that included randomized trials and examined effectiveness of any medical intervention. For eligible meta-analyses, we searched for other meta-analyses on the same topic (covering the same comparisons, indications/settings, and outcomes or overlapping subsets of them) published until February 2013.

Results

Of 73 eligible meta-analyses published in 2010, 49 (67%) had at least one other overlapping meta-analysis (median two meta-analyses per topic, interquartile range 1-4, maximum 13). In 17 topics at least one author was involved in at least two of the overlapping meta-analyses. No characteristics of the index meta-analyses were associated with the potential for overlapping meta-analyses. Among pairs of overlapping meta-analyses in 20 randomly selected topics, 13 of the more recent meta-analyses did not include any additional outcomes. In three of the four topics with eight or more published meta-analyses, many meta-analyses examined only a subset of the eligible interventions or indications/settings covered by the index meta-analysis. Conversely, for statins in the prevention of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery, 11 meta-analyses were published with similar eligibility criteria for interventions and setting: there was still variability on which studies were included, but the results were always similar or even identical across meta-analyses.

Conclusions

While some independent replication of meta-analyses by different teams is possibly useful, the overall picture suggests that there is a waste of efforts with many topics covered by multiple overlapping meta-analyses.

SUBMITTER: Siontis KC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3716360 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Meta-analyses conducted via the Cochrane Collaboration adhere to strict methodological and reporting standards aiming to minimize bias, maximize transparency/reproducibility, and improve the accuracy of summarized data. Whether this results in differences in the results reported by meta-analyses on the same topic conducted outside the Cochrane Collaboration is an open question.We conducted a matched-pair analysis with individual meta-analyses as the unit of analysis, comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Using meta-analyses from the cardiovascular literature, we identified pairs that matched on intervention and outcome. The pairs were contrasted in terms of how frequently results disagreed between the Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, whether effect sizes and statistical precision differed systematically, and how these differences related to the frequency of secondary citations of those reviews.Our search yielded 40 matched pairs of reviews. The two sets were similar in terms of which was first to publication, how many studies were included, and average sample sizes. The paired reviews included a total of 344 individual clinical trials: 111 (32.3%) studies were included only in a Cochrane review, 104 (30.2%) only in a non-Cochrane review, and 129 (37.5%) in both. Stated another way, 62.5% of studies were only included in one or the other meta-analytic literature. Overall, 37.5% of pairs had discrepant results. The most common involved shifts in the width of 95% confidence intervals that would yield a different statistical interpretation of the significance of results (7 pairs). Additionally, 20% differed in the direction of the summary effect size (5 pairs) or reported greater than a 2-fold difference in its magnitude (3 pairs). Non-Cochrane reviews reported significantly higher effect sizes (P< 0.001) and lower precision (P<0.001) than matched Cochrane reviews. Reviews reporting an effect size at least 2-fold greater than their matched pair were cited more frequently.Though results between topic-matched Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were quite similar, discrepant results were frequent, and the overlap of included studies was surprisingly low. Non-Cochrane reviews report larger effect sizes with lower precision than Cochrane reviews, indicating systematic differences, likely reflective of methodology, between the two types of reviews that could generate different interpretations of the interventions under question.

Project description:The putative risk/protective factors for several personality disorders remain unclear. The vast majority of published studies has assessed personality characteristics/traits rather than disorders. Thus, the current umbrella review of meta-analyses (MAs) aims to systematically assess risk or protective factors associated with personality disorders. We searched PubMed-MEDLINE/PsycInfo databases, up to August 31, 2020. Quality of MAs was assessed with AMSTAR-2, while the credibility of evidence for each association was assessed through standard quantitative criteria. Out of 571 initial references, five meta-analyses met inclusion criteria, encompassing 56 associations of 26 potential environmental factors for antisocial, dependent, borderline personality disorder, with a median of five studies per association, and median 214 cases per association. Overall, 35 (62.5%) of the associations were nominally significant. Six associations met class II (i.e., highly suggestive) evidence for borderline personality disorder, with large effect sizes involving childhood emotional abuse (OR = 28.15, 95% CI 14.76-53.68), childhood emotional neglect (OR = 22.86, 95% CI 11.55-45.22), childhood any adversities (OR = 14.32, 95% CI 10.80-18.98), childhood physical abuse (OR = 9.30, 95% CI 6.57-13.17), childhood sexual abuse (OR = 7.95, 95% CI 6.21-10.17), and childhood physical neglect (OR = 5.73, 95% CI 3.21-10.21), plus 16 further associations supported by class IV evidence. No risk factor for antisocial or dependent personality disorder was supported by class I, II, and III, but six and seven met class IV evidence, respectively. Quality of included meta-analyses was rated as moderate in two, critically low in three. The large effect sizes found for a broad range of childhood adversities suggest that prevention of personality disorders should target childhood-related risk factors. However, larger cohort studies assessing multidimensional risk factors are needed in the field.