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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Commentary

The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review

Authors: Lesley Uttley, Paul Montgomery

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

There is an increasing body of research documenting flaws in many published systematic reviews’ methodological and reporting conduct. When good systematic review practice is questioned, attention is rarely turned to the composition of the team that conducted the systematic review. This commentary highlights a number of relevant articles indicating how the composition of the review team could jeopardise the integrity of the systematic review study and its conclusions. Key biases require closer attention such as sponsorship bias and researcher allegiance, but there may also be less obvious affiliations in teams conducting secondary evidence-syntheses. The importance of transparency and disclosure are now firmly on the agenda for clinical trials and primary research, but the meta-biases that systematic reviews may be at risk from now require further scrutiny.
Literature
1.
Swan, J., et al., Evidence in management decisions (EMD)—advancing knowledge utilization in healthcare management. Final Report. NIHR Health Services and Delivery Programme, 2012.
2.
3.
Page MJ, et al. Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e011863.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Flacco ME, et al. Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(7):811–20.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Page, M.J., et al., Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. The Cochrane Library, 2014.CrossRef
7.
Pussegoda K, et al. Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1):117.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
9.
Ioannidis JP. Discussion: why “an estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature” is false. Biostatistics. 2014;15(1):28–36.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Munder T, et al. Researcher allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: an overview of reviews. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(4):501–11.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Goodman S, Dickersin K. Metabias: a challenge for comparative effectiveness research. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(1):61–2.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Elia N, et al. How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors. BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e010442.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Humaidan P, Polyzos NP. (Meta) analyze this: systematic reviews might lose credibility. Nat Med. 2012;18(9):1321.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Borah R, et al. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012545.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2831–4.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Page MJ, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016:13(5).
19.
Moher D, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Moher D, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015;4(1):1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Wasiak, J., et al., Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management. International wound journal, 2016.
22.
Dudden RF, Protzko SL. The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian. Medical reference services quarterly. 2011;30(3):301–15.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Ebrahim S, et al. Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:155–63.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Gómez-García, F., et al., Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on psoriasis: role of funding sources, conflict of interest, and bibliometric indices as predictors of methodological quality. British Journal of Dermatology, 2017.
26.
Bes-Rastrollo M, et al. Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2014;10(12):e1001578.CrossRef
27.
Spiegelhalter D. The importance of what you don’t see. In: [Blog] Understanding Uncertainty; 2016.
28.
Eisner M, et al. Disclosure of financial conflicts of interests in interventions to improve child psychosocial health: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0142803.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Lieb K, et al. Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2016:6(4).
30.
Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP. Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? BMJ. 2012;345:e7031.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Fleurence RL, et al. Engaging patients and stakeholders in research proposal review: the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(2):122–30.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Basch E, et al. Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association. 2012;307(15):1636–40.CrossRef
33.
Catalá-López F, et al. Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis. BMC Med. 2014;12(1):1.CrossRef
34.
Lomas J. Using 'linkage and exchange' to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff. 2000;19(3):236.CrossRef
35.
Boudreau, K., et al., The novelty paradox & bias for normal science: evidence from randomized medical grant proposal evaluations. 2012.
36.
37.
38.
Nasser M, et al. An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane Reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(5):511–21.CrossRefPubMed
39.
40.
41.
Shea BJ, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7
42.
Andrews J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):719–25.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2008;336(7650):924.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Glasziou P, Djulbegovic B, Burls A. Are systematic reviews more cost-effective than randomised trials? Lancet. 2006;367(9528):2057–8.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review
Authors
Lesley Uttley
Paul Montgomery
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0548-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Systematic Reviews 1/2017 Go to the issue

Methodology

A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools

Protocol

Mapping evidence on the distribution of human papillomavirus-related cancers in sub-Saharan Africa: scoping review protocol

Research

Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review

Protocol

Epidemiology of diabetic foot disease and diabetes-related lower-extremity amputation in Australia: a systematic review protocol

Protocol

Ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion for hydrocephalus in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Protocol

Clinical manifestations and diagnostic methods in pulmonary angiosarcoma: protocol for a scoping review