Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Commentary

Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence

Authors: Timothy Hugh Barker, Celina Borges Migliavaca, Cinara Stein, Verônica Colpani, Maicon Falavigna, Edoardo Aromataris, Zachary Munn

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Single group data present unique challenges for synthesises of evidence. Proportional meta-analysis is becoming an increasingly common technique employed for the synthesis of single group data. Proportional meta-analysis shares many similarities with the conduct and reporting of comparative, or pairwise, meta-analysis. While robust and comprehensive methods exist detailing how researchers can conduct a meta-analysis that compares two (or more) groups against a common intervention, there is a scarcity of methodological guidance available to assist synthesisers of evidence in the conduct, interpretation, and importance of proportional meta-analysis in systematic reviews.

Main body

This paper presents an overview targeted to synthesisers of evidence and systematic review authors that details the methods, importance, and interpretation of a proportional meta-analysis. We provide worked examples of how proportional meta-analyses have been conducted in research syntheses previously and consider the methods, statistical considerations, and presentation of this technique.

Conclusion

This overview is designed to serve as practical guidance for synthesisers of evidence in the conduct of proportional meta-analyses.
Literature
1.
Rao SR, Graubard BI, Schmid CH, Morton SC, Louis TA, Zaslavsky AM, et al. Meta-analysis of survey data: application to health services research. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2008;8(2):98–114.CrossRef
2.
Card NA. Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York: Guilford Publications; 2015.
3.
Kahn SK. Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine: how to review and apply findings of healthcare research. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 2003.
4.
Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(11):974–8.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Riley RD, Moons KG, Snell KI, Ensor J, Hooft L, Altman DG, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. BMJ. 2019;364:k4597.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Iorio A, Spencer FA, Falavigna M, Alba C, Lang E, Burnand B, et al. Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients. BMJ. 2015;350:h870.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Borges Migliavaca C, Stein C, Colpani V, Barker TH, Munn Z, Falavigna M, et al. How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:1–9.CrossRef
8.
Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3(3):123–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Zhao Q-F, Tan L, Wang H-F, Jiang T, Tan M-S, Tan L, et al. The prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer's disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2016;190:264–71.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Escobar-Morreale HF, Santacruz E, Luque-Ramírez M, Botella Carretero JI. Prevalence of ‘obesity-associated gonadal dysfunction’in severely obese men and women and its resolution after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(4):390–408.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Murphy F. Claustrophobia in magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiography. 2015;21(2):e59–63.CrossRef
13.
Parola V, Coelho A, Cardoso D, Sandgren A, Apóstolo J. Prevalence of burnout in health professionals working in palliative care: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15(7):1905–33.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Tham Y-C, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng C-Y. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2081–90.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Hill NR, Fatoba ST, Oke JL, Hirst JA, O’Callaghan CA, Lasserson DS, et al. Global prevalence of chronic kidney disease–a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one. 2016;11(7):e0158765.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):147–53.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Jablensky A. The epidemiological horizon. Schizophrenia. 2003:203–31.
18.
Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D. The Joanna Briggs institute reviewers’ manual 2014. In: The systematic review of prevalence and incidence data. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014.
19.
World Health Organization. Strategizing national health in the 21st century: a handbook. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
20.
Colpani V, Soares Falcetta F, Bacelo Bidinotto A, Kops NL, Falavigna M, Serpa Hammes L, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) in Brazil: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0229154.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Munn Z, Aromataris E, Tufanaru C, Stern C, Porritt K, Farrow J, et al. The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs institute system for the unified management, assessment and review of information (JBI SUMARI). Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2019;17(1):36–43.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Version 09. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2010.
23.
Murad MH, Sultan S, Haffar S, Bazerbachi F. Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018;23(2):60–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2009;10(1):1–9.CrossRef
25.
Schizas D, Frountzas M, Sgouromallis E, Spartalis E, Mylonas KS, Papaioannou TG, et al. Esophageal defect repair by artificial scaffolds: a systematic review of experimental studies and proportional meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2020;34(3):doaa104.CrossRef
26.
Legatti SAM, El Dib R, Legatti E, Botan AG, Camargo SEA, Agarwal A, et al. Acute kidney injury in cats and dogs: a proportional meta-analysis of case series studies. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0190772.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Ianunzio JR. Effectiveness of operative interventions in individuals with a hemi or total hip arthroplasty who sustain a Vancouver B2 peri-prosthetic femoral fracture [thesis]. Adelaide: The University of Adelaide; 2018.
28.
Pham C, Lizarondo L, Karnon J, Aromataris E, Munn Z, Gibb C, et al. Strategies for implementing shared decision making in elective surgery by health care practitioners: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;26(2):582–601.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Lee J, Kim KW, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers-part II. Statistical methods of meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16(6):1188–96.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Campbell JM, Klugar M, Ding S, Carmody DP, Hakonsen SJ, Jadotte YT, et al. Diagnostic test accuracy: methods for systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):154–62.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Decks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323(7305):157–62.CrossRef
32.
Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne JA. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2007;8(2):239–51.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(10):982–90.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001;20(19):2865–84.PubMedCrossRef
35.
36.
Bland M. An introduction to medical statistics. UK: Oxford University Press; 2015.
37.
Kirkwood BR. In: Sterne JA, Kirkwood BR, editors. Essential medical statistics. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Science; 2003.
38.
Schwarzer G, Chemaitelly H, Abu-Raddad LJ, Rücker G. Seriously misleading results using inverse of freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta-analysis of single proportions. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):476–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Stephenson M, Aromataris E. Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):196–207.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Saha S, Chant D, Mcgrath J. Meta-analyses of the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia: conceptual and methodological issues. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17(1):55–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Righy C, Rosa RG, da Silva RTA, Kochhann R, Migliavaca CB, Robinson CC, et al. Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in adult critical care survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):1–13.CrossRef
42.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2021.
43.
Migliavaca CB, Stein C, Colpani V, Munn Z, Falavigna M. Quality assessment of prevalence studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;127:59–68.PubMedCrossRef
44.
45.
Dunnigan K. Confidence interval calculation for binomial proportions. Indianapolis: MWSUG Conference; 2008.
46.
Newcombe RG. Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17(8):873–90.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat Sci. 2001;16(2):101–33.CrossRef
48.
49.
Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Increase in studies of publication bias coincided with increasing use of meta-analysis. Br Med J. 1997;316:629–34.CrossRef
50.
Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994:1088–101.
Metadata
Title
Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence
Authors
Timothy Hugh Barker
Celina Borges Migliavaca
Cinara Stein
Verônica Colpani
Maicon Falavigna
Edoardo Aromataris
Zachary Munn
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01381-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research

Predicting COVID-19 mortality risk in Toronto, Canada: a comparison of tree-based and regression-based machine learning methods

Research

Joint modelling of multivariate longitudinal clinical laboratory safety outcomes, concomitant medication and clinical adverse events: application to artemisinin-based treatment during pregnancy clinical trial

Research article

Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews

Research article

Facilitating harmonized data quality assessments. A data quality framework for observational health research data collections with software implementations in R

Research article

A framework for exploring non-response patterns over time in health surveys

Software

Employing multiple synchronous outcome samples per subject to improve study efficiency