Evaluation of Reproducible Research Practices in Oncology Systematic Reviews with Meta-analyses Referenced by National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines

JAMA Oncology

Volumn 5, Issue 11, 2019, Pages 1550-1555

  Wayant, Cole ^a   Page, Matthew J ^b   Vassar, Matt ^a  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER THERAPY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; FOREST PLOT; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); ONLINE SYSTEM; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REPRODUCIBILITY; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); THEORY;

EID: 85072069075     PISSN: 23742437     EISSN: 23742445     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2564     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour. 2017; 1 (1):s41562.
2. Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014; 505 (7485): 612-613. doi: 10.1038/505612a 24482835
3. Rivoirard R, Bourmaud A, Oriol M, Quality of reporting in oncology studies: a systematic analysis of literature reviews and prospects. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2017; 112: 179-189. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.02.012 28325258
4. Page MJ, Altman DG, Shamseer L, Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 94: 8-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.017 29113936
5. Collaboration OS; Open Science Collaboration. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015; 349 (6251): aac4716. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716 26315443
6. Nosek BA, Errington TM. Reproducibility in cancer biology: making sense of replications. eLife Sci. 2017; 6: e23383.
7. Lakens D, Page-Gould E, van Assen MA, Examining the Reproducibility of Meta-Analyses in Psychology: A Preliminary Report. 2017. https://osf.io/preprints/bitss/xfbjf. Accessed May 8, 2018.
8. Jagsi R, Huang G, Griffith K, Attitudes toward and use of cancer management guidelines in a national sample of medical oncologists and surgeons. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014; 12 (2): 204-212. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2014.0021 24586082
9. Wayant C. Matthew J Page, Matt Vassar. Reproducibility of Oncology Meta-Analyses. https://osf.io/kxj9z/. Published May 23, 2018. Accessed May 23, 2018.
10. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M,; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4: 1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 25554246
11. NCCN. NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer by Site. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/default.aspx#site. Accessed May 6, 2018.
12. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016; 5 (1): 210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 27919275
13. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 12958120
14. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7 (3): 177-188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 3802833
15. Page MJ, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2017; 6 (1): 263. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8 29258593
16. Vaughn K, Skinner M, Vaughn V, Wayant C, Vassar M. Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews referenced in the clinical practice guideline for pediatric high-blood pressure. J Hypertens. 2019; 37 (3): 488-495. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001870 30045363
17. Nissen T, Wayant C, Wahlstrom A, Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity. Clin Obes. 2017; 7 (1): 34-45. doi: 10.1111/cob.12174 28112500
18. Scott J, Howard B, Sinnett P, Variable methodological quality and use found in systematic reviews referenced in STEMI clinical practice guidelines. Am J Emerg Med. 2017; 35 (12): 1828-1835. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.06.010 28623004
19. Ross A, Rankin J, Beaman J, Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder. PLoS One. 2017; 12 (8): e0181927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181927 28771633
20. Peters JPM, Hooft L, Grolman W, Stegeman I. Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of otorhinolaryngologic articles based on the PRISMA statement. PLoS One. 2015; 10 (8): e0136540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136540 26317406
21. Liu Y, Zhang R, Huang J, Reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture. PLoS One. 2014; 9 (11): e113172. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113172 25397774
22. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Epidemiology and Reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016; 13 (5): e1002028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 27218655