Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
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 - 1759-2887
IS - 4
ER -