Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: A meta-epidemiological study

B. N. Detweiler, L. E. Kollmorgen, B. A. Umberham, R. J. Hedin, Matt Vassar

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The validity of primary study results included in systematic reviews plays an important role in drawing conclusions about intervention effectiveness and carries implications for clinical decision-making. We evaluated the prevalence of methodological quality and risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews published in the five highest-ranked anaesthesia journals since 2007. The initial PubMed search yielded 315 citations, and our final sample after screening consisted of 207 systematic reviews. One hundred and seventy-four reviews conducted methodological quality/risk of bias analyses. The Jadad scale was most frequently used. Forty-four of the 83 reviews that included high risk of bias studies re-analysed their data omitting these trials: 20 showed differences in pooled effect estimates. Reviews containing a greater number of primary studies evaluated quality less frequently than smaller reviews. Overall, the majority of reviews evaluated bias; however, many applied questionable methods. Given the potential effects of bias on summary outcomes, greater attention is warranted.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)955-968
Number of pages14
JournalAnaesthesia
Volume71
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Aug 2016

Fingerprint

Anesthetics
Epidemiologic Studies
PubMed
Anesthesia
Clinical Decision-Making

Keywords

  • Cochrane
  • Meta-analysis
  • Research quality
  • Risk of bias
  • Systematic review

Cite this

Detweiler, B. N. ; Kollmorgen, L. E. ; Umberham, B. A. ; Hedin, R. J. ; Vassar, Matt. / Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals : A meta-epidemiological study. In: Anaesthesia. 2016 ; Vol. 71, No. 8. pp. 955-968.
@article{c79fcbc9d57b4f3a938fac4ba13c1eb6,
title = "Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: A meta-epidemiological study",
abstract = "The validity of primary study results included in systematic reviews plays an important role in drawing conclusions about intervention effectiveness and carries implications for clinical decision-making. We evaluated the prevalence of methodological quality and risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews published in the five highest-ranked anaesthesia journals since 2007. The initial PubMed search yielded 315 citations, and our final sample after screening consisted of 207 systematic reviews. One hundred and seventy-four reviews conducted methodological quality/risk of bias analyses. The Jadad scale was most frequently used. Forty-four of the 83 reviews that included high risk of bias studies re-analysed their data omitting these trials: 20 showed differences in pooled effect estimates. Reviews containing a greater number of primary studies evaluated quality less frequently than smaller reviews. Overall, the majority of reviews evaluated bias; however, many applied questionable methods. Given the potential effects of bias on summary outcomes, greater attention is warranted.",
keywords = "Cochrane, Meta-analysis, Research quality, Risk of bias, Systematic review",
author = "Detweiler, {B. N.} and Kollmorgen, {L. E.} and Umberham, {B. A.} and Hedin, {R. J.} and Matt Vassar",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/anae.13520",
language = "English",
volume = "71",
pages = "955--968",
journal = "Anaesthesia",
issn = "0003-2409",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "8",

}

Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals : A meta-epidemiological study. / Detweiler, B. N.; Kollmorgen, L. E.; Umberham, B. A.; Hedin, R. J.; Vassar, Matt.

In: Anaesthesia, Vol. 71, No. 8, 01.08.2016, p. 955-968.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals

T2 - A meta-epidemiological study

AU - Detweiler, B. N.

AU - Kollmorgen, L. E.

AU - Umberham, B. A.

AU - Hedin, R. J.

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - The validity of primary study results included in systematic reviews plays an important role in drawing conclusions about intervention effectiveness and carries implications for clinical decision-making. We evaluated the prevalence of methodological quality and risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews published in the five highest-ranked anaesthesia journals since 2007. The initial PubMed search yielded 315 citations, and our final sample after screening consisted of 207 systematic reviews. One hundred and seventy-four reviews conducted methodological quality/risk of bias analyses. The Jadad scale was most frequently used. Forty-four of the 83 reviews that included high risk of bias studies re-analysed their data omitting these trials: 20 showed differences in pooled effect estimates. Reviews containing a greater number of primary studies evaluated quality less frequently than smaller reviews. Overall, the majority of reviews evaluated bias; however, many applied questionable methods. Given the potential effects of bias on summary outcomes, greater attention is warranted.

AB - The validity of primary study results included in systematic reviews plays an important role in drawing conclusions about intervention effectiveness and carries implications for clinical decision-making. We evaluated the prevalence of methodological quality and risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews published in the five highest-ranked anaesthesia journals since 2007. The initial PubMed search yielded 315 citations, and our final sample after screening consisted of 207 systematic reviews. One hundred and seventy-four reviews conducted methodological quality/risk of bias analyses. The Jadad scale was most frequently used. Forty-four of the 83 reviews that included high risk of bias studies re-analysed their data omitting these trials: 20 showed differences in pooled effect estimates. Reviews containing a greater number of primary studies evaluated quality less frequently than smaller reviews. Overall, the majority of reviews evaluated bias; however, many applied questionable methods. Given the potential effects of bias on summary outcomes, greater attention is warranted.

KW - Cochrane

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Research quality

KW - Risk of bias

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978174617&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/anae.13520

DO - 10.1111/anae.13520

M3 - Review article

C2 - 27396249

AN - SCOPUS:84978174617

VL - 71

SP - 955

EP - 968

JO - Anaesthesia

JF - Anaesthesia

SN - 0003-2409

IS - 8

ER -