Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis

被引:281
|
作者
Davey, Jonathan [1 ]
Turner, Rebecca M. [1 ]
Clarke, Mike J. [2 ]
Higgins, Julian P. T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Publ Hlth, MRC Biostat Unit, Cambridge, England
[2] Queens Univ Belfast, Ctr Publ Hlth, Belfast BT7 1NN, Antrim, North Ireland
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Cochrane Review; Forest Plot; Medical Specialty; Medical Area; Healthcare Intervention;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2288-11-160
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Cochrane systematic reviews collate and summarise studies of the effects of healthcare interventions. The characteristics of these reviews and the meta-analyses and individual studies they contain provide insights into the nature of healthcare research and important context for the development of relevant statistical and other methods. Methods: We classified every meta-analysis with at least two studies in every review in the January 2008 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) according to the medical specialty, the types of interventions being compared and the type of outcome. We provide descriptive statistics for numbers of meta-analyses, numbers of component studies and sample sizes of component studies, broken down by these categories. Results: We included 2321 reviews containing 22,453 meta-analyses, which themselves consist of data from 112,600 individual studies (which may appear in more than one meta-analysis). Meta-analyses in the areas of gynaecology, pregnancy and childbirth (21%), mental health (13%) and respiratory diseases (13%) are well represented in the CDSR. Most meta-analyses address drugs, either with a control or placebo group (37%) or in a comparison with another drug (25%). The median number of meta-analyses per review is six (inter-quartile range 3 to 12). The median number of studies included in the meta-analyses with at least two studies is three (inter-quartile range 2 to 6). Sample sizes of individual studies range from 2 to 1,242,071, with a median of 91 participants. Discussion: It is clear that the numbers of studies eligible for meta-analyses are typically very small for all medical areas, outcomes and interventions covered by Cochrane reviews. This highlights the particular importance of suitable methods for the meta-analysis of small data sets. There was little variation in number of studies per meta-analysis across medical areas, across outcome data types or across types of interventions being compared.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis
    Jonathan Davey
    Rebecca M Turner
    Mike J Clarke
    Julian PT Higgins
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11
  • [2] Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
    Kicinski, Michal
    Springate, David A.
    Kontopantelis, Evangelos
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2015, 34 (20) : 2781 - 2793
  • [3] Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study
    Zeraatkar, Dena
    Bhasin, Arrti
    Morassut, Rita E.
    Churchill, Isabella
    Gupta, Arnav
    Lawson, Daeria O.
    Miroshnychenko, Anna
    Sirotich, Emily
    Aryal, Komal
    Mikhail, David
    Khan, Tauseef A.
    Ha, Vanessa
    Sievenpiper, John L.
    Hanna, Steven E.
    Beyene, Joseph
    de Souza, Russell J.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2021, 113 (06): : 1578 - 1592
  • [4] An Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Cross-sectional Analysis
    Hillman, Cody
    Lindsey, Alyssa
    Ottwell, Ryan
    Arthur, Wade
    Cook, Courtney
    Howard, Hannah
    Wright, Drew N.
    Hartwell, Micah
    Chen, Suhao
    Miao, Zhuqi
    Vassar, Matt
    [J]. CUTIS, 2023, 111 (05): : E21 - E29
  • [5] Many meta-analyses of rare events in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were underpowered
    Jia, Pengli
    Lin, Lifeng
    Kwong, Joey S. W.
    Xu, Chang
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2021, 131 : 113 - 122
  • [6] Evidence for differences in patterns of temporal trends in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews
    Murphy, Jacqueline
    Fanshawe, Thomas R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2024, 174
  • [7] Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis
    Reddy, Arjun K.
    Lulkovich, Kaley
    Ottwell, Ryan
    Arthur, Wade
    Bowers, Aaron
    Al-Rifai, Shafiq
    Cook, Katherine
    Wright, Drew N.
    Hartwell, Micah
    Vassar, Matt
    [J]. SEXUAL MEDICINE, 2021, 9 (01)
  • [8] The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: An independent appraisal
    Delaney, Anthony
    Bagshaw, Sean M.
    Ferland, Andre
    Laupland, Kevin
    Manns, Braden
    Doig, Christopher
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2007, 35 (02) : 589 - 594
  • [9] Epidemiology, methodological quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on coronavirus disease 2019 A cross-sectional study
    Chen, Yuehong
    Li, Ling
    Zhang, Qiuping
    Liu, Huan
    Huang, Yupeng
    Lin, Sang
    Yin, Geng
    Xie, Qibing
    [J]. MEDICINE, 2021, 100 (47)
  • [10] Outcome reporting bias in Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis
    Shah, Kieran
    Egan, Gregory
    Huan, Lawrence
    Kirkham, Jamie
    Reid, Emma
    Tejani, Aaron M.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (03):