Reporting characteristics of meta-analyses in orthodontics: Methodological assessment and statistical recommendations

European Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 74-85

  Papageorgiou, Spyridon N ^a   Papadopoulos, Moschos A ^b   Athanasiou, Athanasios E ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^b ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

^c Mohamed Bin Rashid University   (United Arab Emirates)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; ORTHODONTICS; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; ORTHODONTICS; RESEARCH DESIGN; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84893036731     PISSN: 01415387     EISSN: 14602210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjt008     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Journal Citation Reports Science Edition 2011, Thomson Reuters (http://thomsonreuters.com) Accessed on August 24 2011
2. Al Faleh K, Al-Omran M 2009 Reporting and methodologic quality of Cochrane Neonatal review group systematic reviews. BMC Pediatrics 9: 38
3. Altman D G, Goodman S N, Schroter S. 2002 How statistical expertise is used in medical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 2817-2820
4. Balk E M et al. 2002 Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 2973-2982
5. Begg C B, Mazumdar M 1994 Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50: 1088-1101
6. Bouchard K, Dubuisson W, Simard J, Dorval M 2011 Systematic mixedmethods reviews are not ready to be assessed with the available tools. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 926-928
7. Braun T, Glzel W, Schubert A 2006 A hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics 69: 169-173
8. Brookes S T, Whitely E, Egger M, Smith G D, Mulheran P A, Peters T J 2004 Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 57: 229-236
9. Chavalarias D, Ioannidis J P 2010 Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63: 1205-1215
10. Cobo E et al. 2011 Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. British Medical Journal 343: d6783
11. Dekkers O M, von Elm E, Algra A, Romijn J A, Vandenbroucke J P 2010 How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach. International Journal of Epidemiology 39: 89-94
12. Delgado-Rodriguez M, Ruiz-Canela M, De Irala-Estevez J, Llorca J, Martinez-Gonzalez A 2001 Participation of epidemiologists and/or biostatisticians and methodological quality of published controlled clinical trials. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 55: 569-572
13. Dwan K et al. 2008 Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PloS One 3: e3081
14. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C 1997 Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal 315: 629-634
15. Eliades T, Athanasiou A E 2001 Impact factor. A review with specific relevance to orthodontic journals. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics 62: 74-83
16. Faggion C M Jr, Listl S, Giannakopoulos N N 2012 The methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies in dentistry. Veterinary Journal 192: 140-147
17. Fedorowicz Z, Sequeira-Byron P, Jagannath V, Sharif M O 2011 Climate change in endodontics: is it time to recycle "garbage in-garbage out" systematic reviews? Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics 112: 515-517
18. Feinstein A R 1995 Meta-analysis: statistical alchemy for the 21st century. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 48: 71-79
19. Flores-Mir C, Major M P, Major P W 2006 Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2000-2004). American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 130: 214-217
20. Glenny A M, Esposito M, Coulthard P, Worthington H V 2003 The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry. European Journal of Oral Sciences 111: 85-92
21. Gzsche P C et al. 2009 What should be done to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature? PLoS Medicine 6: e23
22. Greenland S, O'Rourke K 2001 On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics 2: 463-471
23. Guyatt G H et al.; GRADE Working Group 2008 GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal 336: 924-926
24. Harbord R M, Egger M, Sterne J A 2006 A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 25: 3443-3457
25. Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie W J 2006 Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59: 1249-1256
26. Higgins J P T, Green S 2011 Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 (updated March 2011) (http://www.mrc-bsu.cam. ac.uk/cochrane/handbook.htm) Accessed on October 31 2012
27. Higgins J P et al.; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. British Medical Journal 343: d5928
28. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu L M, Chan A W, Altman D G 2010 The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. British Medical Journal 340: c723
29. Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, Egger M 2007 Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2: MR000010
30. Huwiler-M tener K, J i P, Junker C, Egger M 2002 Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 2801-2804
31. Ioannidis J, Lau J 2001 Evolution of treatment effects over time: empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98: 831-836
32. Jadad A R et al. 1998 Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 278-280
33. Jadad A R et al. 1996 Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials 17: 1-12
34. Jude-Eze E N 2011 Quality of meta-analysis in terms of actual statistical analysis. Master thesis, University of Glasgow
35. J i P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M 1999 The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 282: 1054-1060
36. Kanavakis G, Spinos P, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T, Papadopoulos M A, Athanasiou A E 2006 Orthodontic journals with impact factors in perspective: trends in the types of articles and authorship characteristics. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 130: 516-522
37. Korevaar D A, Hooft L, ter Riet G 2011 Systematic reviews and metaanalyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Laboratory Animals 45: 225-230
38. Kulkarni A V, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse J W 2009 Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association 302: 1092-1096
39. Lambert P C, Sutton A J, Abrams K R, Jones D R 2002 A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 55: 86-94
40. Lang A, Edwards N, Fleiszer A 2007 Empty systematic reviews: hidden perils and lessons learned. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60: 595-597
41. Lee K P, Boyd E A, Holroyd-Leduc J M, Bacchetti P, Bero L A 2006 Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. The Medical Journal of Australia 184: 621-626
42. Liberati A et al. 2009 The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62: e1-34
43. Maggio L A, Tannery N H, Kanter S L 2011 Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews. Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 86: 1049-1054
44. Major M P, Major P W, Flores-Mir C 2007 Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental speciality. Evidence-Based Dentistry 8: 66-70
45. Major M P, Warren S, Flores-Mir C 2009 Survey of systematic review authors in dentistry: challenges in methodology and reporting. Journal of Dental Education 73: 471-482
46. Meho L I, Yang K 2007 Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 58: 2105-2125
47. Melchiors A C, Correr C J, Venson R, Pontarolo R 2012 An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 34: 32-42
48. Minelli C, Thompson J R, Abrams K R, Thakkinstian A, Attia J 2009 The quality of meta-analyses of genetic association studies: a review with recommendations. American Journal of Epidemiology 170: 1333-1343
49. Moher D, Cook D J, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D F 1999 Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Metaanalyses. Lancet 354: 1896-1900
50. Moher D, Jadad A R, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S 1995 Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clinical Trials 16: 62-73
51. Moher D et al. 1998 Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352: 609-613
52. Moher D, Schulz K F, Altman D G; CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2001 The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 134: 657-662
53. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco A C, Sampson M, Altman D G 2007a Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine 4: e78
54. Moher D et al. 2007b A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60: 1095-1104
55. Morissette K, Tricco A C, Horsley T, Chen M H, Moher D 2011 Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 9: MR000025
56. Nieminen P, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schumacher M 2006 The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Medical Research Methodology 6: 42
57. Oxman A D, Sch emann H J, Fretheim A 2006 Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Research Policy and Systems 4: 20
58. Pantoja T, Campbell S 2009 Systematic reviews in health policy and systems research. Briefing note 4. Alliance for health policy and systems research (http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/resources/AllianceHPSR- Brief-Note4-ENG.pdf) Accessed on October 31 2012
59. Papadopoulos M A, Gkiaouris I 2007 A critical evaluation of meta-analyses in orthodontics. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 131: 589-599
60. Papageorgiou S N, Papadopoulos M A, Athanasiou A E 2011 Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research 14: 116-137
61. Patsopoulos N A, Analatos A A, Ioannidis J P 2005 Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association 293: 2362-2366
62. Perneger T V et al. 2004 Medical researchers evaluate their methodological skills. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 57: 1323-1329
63. Peters J L, Sutton A J, Jones D R, Abrams K R, Rushton L 2006 Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 295: 676-680
64. Plint A C et al. 2006 Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. The Medical Journal of Australia 185: 263-267
65. PLoS Medicine Editors 2007 Many reviews are systematic but some are more transparent and completely reported than others. PLoS Medicine 4: e147
66. Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T, Taoufik K, Papadopoulos M A, Athanasiou A E 2011 Knowledge of European orthodontic postgraduate students on biostatistics. European Journal of Orthodontics 33: 434-440
67. Polychronopoulou A, Pandis N, Eliades T 2010 Assessment of publication bias in dental specialty journals. The Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice 10: 207-211
68. Proposed evaluation tools for COMPUS 2005 Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, Ottawa. (https://www.ccohta.ca/ compus/compus-pdfCOMPUS-Evaluation-Methodology-draft-e.pdf) Accessed on October 31 2012
69. Review Manager (RevMan) 2011 Computer program, Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. (http://ims.cochrane. org/revman) Accessed on October 31 2012
70. Richards D 2005 Outcomes, what outcomes? Evidence-Based Dentistry 6: 1
71. Riley R D, Gates S, Neilson J, Alfirevic Z 2011 Statistical methods can be improved within Cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 608-618
72. Rinchuse D J, Rinchuse D J, Kandasamy S, Ackerman M B 2008 Deconstructing evidence in orthodontics: making sense of systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses. World Journal of Orthodontics 9: 167-176
73. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C 2009 An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62: 944-952
74. Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, Cogo E, Moher D 2008 No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61: 748-754
75. Sampson M, Shojania K G, Garritty C, Horsley T, Ocampo M, Moher D 2008 Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61: 531-536
76. Sanderson S, Tatt I D, Higgins J P 2007 Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. International Journal of Epidemiology 36: 666-676
77. SCImago 2007 SJR-SCImago Journal & Country Rank (http://www. scimagojr.com) Accessed on August 24 2011
78. Sharpe D 1997 Apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away. Clinical Psychology Review 17: 881-901
79. Shea B J et al. 2007a External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PloS One 2: e1350
80. Shea B J et al. 2007b Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7: 10
81. Shea B J et al. 2009 AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62: 1013-1020
82. Shea B, Boers M, Grimshaw J M, Hamel C, Bouter L M 2006 Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews? BMC Medical Research Methodology 6: 27
83. Shea B et al. 2006 Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The Journal of Rheumatology 33: 9-15
84. Siontis K C, Evangelou E, Ioannidis J P 2011 Magnitude of effects in clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals. International Journal of Epidemiology 40: 1280-1291
85. Smith R 2005 Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Medicine 2: e138
86. Sterne J A, J i P, Schulz K F, Altman D G, Bartlett C, Egger M 2002 Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects inmeta-epidemiological' research. Statistics in Medicine 21: 1513-1524
87. Sterne J A et al. 2011 Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal 343: d4002
88. Sutton A J, Abrams K R, Jones D R, Sheldon T A, Song F 1998 Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. Health Technology Assessment 2: 1-276
89. Tricco A C, Straus S E, Moher D 2011 How can we improve the interpretation of systematic reviews? BMC Medicine 9: 31
90. Trikalinos T A et al.; EU-PSI Project 2004 Effect sizes in cumulative metaanalyses of mental health randomized trials evolved over time. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 57: 1124-1130
91. Tulloch J F, Antczak-Bouckoms A A, Tuncay O C 1989 A review of clinical research in orthodontics. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 95: 499-504
92. Vanclay J K 2007 On the robustness of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 58: 1547-1550
93. Whitlock E P, Lin J S, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinson K A 2008 Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine 148: 776-782