Heterogeneity assessment in gastroenterology systematic reviews: An analysis of current practices

Trace Heavener, Jesse Richards, Haley Bird, Matt Vassar

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, variation (heterogeneity) in the primary studies is often a concern resulting from factors such as study design, data analysis methods, study quality, settings and interventions and/or patient characteristics. After determining the extent of heterogeneity, authors examine the causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and/or meta-regression analysis. There is no assessment of heterogeneity practices in gastroenterological literature; thus, we present this assessment. Methods: We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews published from 2011 to 2016 in the top 10 gastroenterology journals, as well as gastrointestinal topics in general medical journals and the PROSPERO trial registry. The first and second authors independently abstracted data elements, such as levels of inconsistency, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis. Results: The search identified 3154 studies; of these, 337 were eligible for inclusion. Included studies consisted of 306 from the gastroenterology literature, 19 studies from PROSPERO and 12 studies from the general internal medicine journals. A significant number of reviews in gastroenterology journals (31.05%, 95/306), internal medicine journals (16.67%, 2/12) and PROSPERO (52.63%, 10/19) conducted a meta-analysis despite having fewer than 10 primary studies. Most of the reviews in gastroenterology journals (81.05%, 248/306), general internal medicine journals (75%, 9/12) and PROSPERO results (73.68%, 14/19) used a combination of methods to assess heterogeneity. There were 20 various definitions of levels of inconsistency (I 2) throughout all the results. Random effects was the most common model choice in gastroenterology journals reviews (57.84%; 177/306), internal medicine journals (75%, 9/12) and for PROSPERO results (41.11%, 8/19). The majority of reviews did not discuss the impact of heterogeneity on results in the gastroenterology journals (62.09%, 190/306), only one study in the general internal medicine journals and only one study in the PROSPERO results. Conclusion: In gastroenterology journals and other journals printing gastrointestinal topic systematic reviews, most conducted statistical tests for heterogeneity; however, the statistical methods could be more robust and the impact of heterogeneity discussed more often in the article.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)101-106
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jun 2018

Fingerprint

Gastroenterology
Internal Medicine
Meta-Analysis
Regression Analysis
Printing
PubMed
Registries

Keywords

  • gastroenterology
  • heterogeneity
  • meta-analysis
  • systematic review

Cite this

@article{4c7fcb40ea5a4dafaff36d3c51493c11,
title = "Heterogeneity assessment in gastroenterology systematic reviews: An analysis of current practices",
abstract = "Aim: In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, variation (heterogeneity) in the primary studies is often a concern resulting from factors such as study design, data analysis methods, study quality, settings and interventions and/or patient characteristics. After determining the extent of heterogeneity, authors examine the causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and/or meta-regression analysis. There is no assessment of heterogeneity practices in gastroenterological literature; thus, we present this assessment. Methods: We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews published from 2011 to 2016 in the top 10 gastroenterology journals, as well as gastrointestinal topics in general medical journals and the PROSPERO trial registry. The first and second authors independently abstracted data elements, such as levels of inconsistency, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis. Results: The search identified 3154 studies; of these, 337 were eligible for inclusion. Included studies consisted of 306 from the gastroenterology literature, 19 studies from PROSPERO and 12 studies from the general internal medicine journals. A significant number of reviews in gastroenterology journals (31.05{\%}, 95/306), internal medicine journals (16.67{\%}, 2/12) and PROSPERO (52.63{\%}, 10/19) conducted a meta-analysis despite having fewer than 10 primary studies. Most of the reviews in gastroenterology journals (81.05{\%}, 248/306), general internal medicine journals (75{\%}, 9/12) and PROSPERO results (73.68{\%}, 14/19) used a combination of methods to assess heterogeneity. There were 20 various definitions of levels of inconsistency (I 2) throughout all the results. Random effects was the most common model choice in gastroenterology journals reviews (57.84{\%}; 177/306), internal medicine journals (75{\%}, 9/12) and for PROSPERO results (41.11{\%}, 8/19). The majority of reviews did not discuss the impact of heterogeneity on results in the gastroenterology journals (62.09{\%}, 190/306), only one study in the general internal medicine journals and only one study in the PROSPERO results. Conclusion: In gastroenterology journals and other journals printing gastrointestinal topic systematic reviews, most conducted statistical tests for heterogeneity; however, the statistical methods could be more robust and the impact of heterogeneity discussed more often in the article.",
keywords = "gastroenterology, heterogeneity, meta-analysis, systematic review",
author = "Trace Heavener and Jesse Richards and Haley Bird and Matt Vassar",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/XEB.0000000000000130",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "101--106",
journal = "International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare",
issn = "1744-1595",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

Heterogeneity assessment in gastroenterology systematic reviews : An analysis of current practices. / Heavener, Trace; Richards, Jesse; Bird, Haley; Vassar, Matt.

In: International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, Vol. 16, No. 2, 01.06.2018, p. 101-106.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Heterogeneity assessment in gastroenterology systematic reviews

T2 - An analysis of current practices

AU - Heavener, Trace

AU - Richards, Jesse

AU - Bird, Haley

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Aim: In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, variation (heterogeneity) in the primary studies is often a concern resulting from factors such as study design, data analysis methods, study quality, settings and interventions and/or patient characteristics. After determining the extent of heterogeneity, authors examine the causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and/or meta-regression analysis. There is no assessment of heterogeneity practices in gastroenterological literature; thus, we present this assessment. Methods: We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews published from 2011 to 2016 in the top 10 gastroenterology journals, as well as gastrointestinal topics in general medical journals and the PROSPERO trial registry. The first and second authors independently abstracted data elements, such as levels of inconsistency, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis. Results: The search identified 3154 studies; of these, 337 were eligible for inclusion. Included studies consisted of 306 from the gastroenterology literature, 19 studies from PROSPERO and 12 studies from the general internal medicine journals. A significant number of reviews in gastroenterology journals (31.05%, 95/306), internal medicine journals (16.67%, 2/12) and PROSPERO (52.63%, 10/19) conducted a meta-analysis despite having fewer than 10 primary studies. Most of the reviews in gastroenterology journals (81.05%, 248/306), general internal medicine journals (75%, 9/12) and PROSPERO results (73.68%, 14/19) used a combination of methods to assess heterogeneity. There were 20 various definitions of levels of inconsistency (I 2) throughout all the results. Random effects was the most common model choice in gastroenterology journals reviews (57.84%; 177/306), internal medicine journals (75%, 9/12) and for PROSPERO results (41.11%, 8/19). The majority of reviews did not discuss the impact of heterogeneity on results in the gastroenterology journals (62.09%, 190/306), only one study in the general internal medicine journals and only one study in the PROSPERO results. Conclusion: In gastroenterology journals and other journals printing gastrointestinal topic systematic reviews, most conducted statistical tests for heterogeneity; however, the statistical methods could be more robust and the impact of heterogeneity discussed more often in the article.

AB - Aim: In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, variation (heterogeneity) in the primary studies is often a concern resulting from factors such as study design, data analysis methods, study quality, settings and interventions and/or patient characteristics. After determining the extent of heterogeneity, authors examine the causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and/or meta-regression analysis. There is no assessment of heterogeneity practices in gastroenterological literature; thus, we present this assessment. Methods: We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews published from 2011 to 2016 in the top 10 gastroenterology journals, as well as gastrointestinal topics in general medical journals and the PROSPERO trial registry. The first and second authors independently abstracted data elements, such as levels of inconsistency, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis. Results: The search identified 3154 studies; of these, 337 were eligible for inclusion. Included studies consisted of 306 from the gastroenterology literature, 19 studies from PROSPERO and 12 studies from the general internal medicine journals. A significant number of reviews in gastroenterology journals (31.05%, 95/306), internal medicine journals (16.67%, 2/12) and PROSPERO (52.63%, 10/19) conducted a meta-analysis despite having fewer than 10 primary studies. Most of the reviews in gastroenterology journals (81.05%, 248/306), general internal medicine journals (75%, 9/12) and PROSPERO results (73.68%, 14/19) used a combination of methods to assess heterogeneity. There were 20 various definitions of levels of inconsistency (I 2) throughout all the results. Random effects was the most common model choice in gastroenterology journals reviews (57.84%; 177/306), internal medicine journals (75%, 9/12) and for PROSPERO results (41.11%, 8/19). The majority of reviews did not discuss the impact of heterogeneity on results in the gastroenterology journals (62.09%, 190/306), only one study in the general internal medicine journals and only one study in the PROSPERO results. Conclusion: In gastroenterology journals and other journals printing gastrointestinal topic systematic reviews, most conducted statistical tests for heterogeneity; however, the statistical methods could be more robust and the impact of heterogeneity discussed more often in the article.

KW - gastroenterology

KW - heterogeneity

KW - meta-analysis

KW - systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050218265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000130

DO - 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000130

M3 - Review article

C2 - 29176428

AN - SCOPUS:85050218265

VL - 16

SP - 101

EP - 106

JO - International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare

JF - International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare

SN - 1744-1595

IS - 2

ER -