Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis
View graph of relations

A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis. / Higgins, Julian P. T.; Lane, Peter W.; Anagnostelis, Betsy; Anzures-Cabrera, Judith; Baker, Nigel F.; Cappelleri, Joseph C.; Haughie, Scott; Hollis, Sally; Lewis, Steff C.; Moneuse, Patrick; Whitehead, Anne.

In: Research Synthesis Methods, Vol. 4, No. 4, 12.2013, p. 351-366.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

Higgins, JPT, Lane, PW, Anagnostelis, B, Anzures-Cabrera, J, Baker, NF, Cappelleri, JC, Haughie, S, Hollis, S, Lewis, SC, Moneuse, P & Whitehead, A 2013, 'A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis', Research Synthesis Methods, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 351-366. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1092

APA

Higgins, J. P. T., Lane, P. W., Anagnostelis, B., Anzures-Cabrera, J., Baker, N. F., Cappelleri, J. C., Haughie, S., Hollis, S., Lewis, S. C., Moneuse, P., & Whitehead, A. (2013). A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 4(4), 351-366. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1092

Vancouver

Higgins JPT, Lane PW, Anagnostelis B, Anzures-Cabrera J, Baker NF, Cappelleri JC et al. A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods. 2013 Dec;4(4):351-366. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1092

Author

Higgins, Julian P. T. ; Lane, Peter W. ; Anagnostelis, Betsy ; Anzures-Cabrera, Judith ; Baker, Nigel F. ; Cappelleri, Joseph C. ; Haughie, Scott ; Hollis, Sally ; Lewis, Steff C. ; Moneuse, Patrick ; Whitehead, Anne. / A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis. In: Research Synthesis Methods. 2013 ; Vol. 4, No. 4. pp. 351-366.

Bibtex

@article{6c5eb2deca264e2c81b53b070e54baa9,
title = "A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis",
abstract = "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 strongemphasis 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 measuredusing 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.",
keywords = "meta-analysis, systematic reviews , quality , bias",
author = "Higgins, {Julian P. T.} and Lane, {Peter W.} and Betsy Anagnostelis and Judith Anzures-Cabrera and Baker, {Nigel F.} and Cappelleri, {Joseph C.} and Scott Haughie and Sally Hollis and Lewis, {Steff C.} and Patrick Moneuse and Anne Whitehead",
year = "2013",
month = dec
doi = "10.1002/jrsm.1092",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "351--366",
journal = "Research Synthesis Methods",
issn = "1759-2879",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis

AU - Higgins, Julian P. T.

AU - Lane, Peter W.

AU - Anagnostelis, Betsy

AU - Anzures-Cabrera, Judith

AU - Baker, Nigel F.

AU - Cappelleri, Joseph C.

AU - Haughie, Scott

AU - Hollis, Sally

AU - Lewis, Steff C.

AU - Moneuse, Patrick

AU - Whitehead, Anne

PY - 2013/12

Y1 - 2013/12

N2 - 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 strongemphasis 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 measuredusing 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.

AB - 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 strongemphasis 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 measuredusing 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.

KW - meta-analysis

KW - systematic reviews

KW - quality

KW - bias

U2 - 10.1002/jrsm.1092

DO - 10.1002/jrsm.1092

M3 - Journal article

VL - 4

SP - 351

EP - 366

JO - Research Synthesis Methods

JF - Research Synthesis Methods

SN - 1759-2879

IS - 4

ER -