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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medicine
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination

Authors: Bartosz Helfer, Aaron Prosser, Myrto T Samara, John R Geddes, Andrea Cipriani, John M Davis, Dimitris Mavridis, Georgia Salanti, Stefan Leucht

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

As the number of systematic reviews is growing rapidly, we systematically investigate whether meta-analyses published in leading medical journals present an outline of available evidence by referring to previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

Methods

We searched PubMed for recent meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high impact factor journals. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified with electronic searches of keywords and by searching reference sections. We analyzed the number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that were cited, described and discussed in each recent meta-analysis. Moreover, we investigated publication characteristics that potentially influence the referencing practices.

Results

We identified 52 recent meta-analyses and 242 previous meta-analyses on the same topics. Of these, 66% of identified previous meta-analyses were cited, 36% described, and only 20% discussed by recent meta-analyses. The probability of citing a previous meta-analysis was positively associated with its publication in a journal with a higher impact factor (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.10) and more recent publication year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.37). Additionally, the probability of a previous study being described by the recent meta-analysis was inversely associated with the concordance of results (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.88), and the probability of being discussed was increased for previous studies that employed meta-analytic methods (odds ratio, 32.36; 95% confidence interval, 2.00 to 522.85).

Conclusions

Meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments do not consistently refer to and discuss findings of previous meta-analyses on the same topic. Such neglect can lead to research waste and be confusing for readers. Journals should make the discussion of related meta-analyses mandatory.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Robinson KA, Goodman SN. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:50–5.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet. 2010;376:20–1.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Clarke M, Hopewell S. Many reports of randomised trials still don’t begin or end with a systematic review of the relevant evidence. J Bahrain Med Soc. 2013;24:145–8.
6.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383:166–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Chang SM, Carey T, Kato EU, Guise J-M, Sanders GD. Identifying research needs for improving health care. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:439–45.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383:267–76.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
14.
Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Hempel S, Newberry SJ, Maher AR, Wang Z, Miles JN, Shanman R, et al. Probiotics for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012;307:1959–69.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Makani H, Bangalore S, Desouza KA, Shah A, Messerli FH. Efficacy and safety of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system: meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2013;346:f360.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Kunz R, Friedrich C, Wolbers M, Mann JF. Meta-analysis: effect of monotherapy and combination therapy with inhibitors of the renin angiotensin system on proteinuria in renal disease. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:30–48.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Fox BD, Kahn SR, Langleben D, Eisenberg MJ, Shimony A. Efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: direct and adjusted indirect meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e7498.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Loke YK, Kwok CS. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban for prevention of venous hromboembolism–systematic review and adjusted indirect comparison. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2011;36:111–24.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;15:10.CrossRef
22.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Jones AP, Conroy E, Williamson PR, Clarke M, Gamble C. The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Cooper N, Jones D, Sutton A. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin Trials. 2005;2:260–4.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Terry RF, Salm JF, Nannei C, Dye C. Creating a global observatory for health R&D. Science. 2014;345:1302–4.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
28.
Bertamini M, Munafo MR. Bite-size science and its undesired side effects. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7:67–71.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature IX: a method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA. 1995;274:1800–4.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Garg AX, Hackam D, Tonelli M. Systematic review and meta-analysis: when one study is just not enough. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3:253–60.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Huang X, Lin J, Demner-Fushman D. Evaluation of PICO as a knowledge representation for clinical questions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;2006:359–63.PubMedCentral
33.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Centre TNC. Review Manager (RevMan). 52nd ed. The Cochrane Collaboration: Copenhagen; 2012.
36.
Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
38.
Chalmers I. The Lethal Consequences of Failing to Make Use of All Relevant Evidence about the Effects of Medical Treatments: The Need for Systematic Reviews. In: Rothwell P, editor. Treating Individuals: from Randomised Trials to Personalised Medicine. London: Lancet; 2007. p. 37–58.
Metadata
Title
Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination
Authors
Bartosz Helfer
Aaron Prosser
Myrto T Samara
John R Geddes
Andrea Cipriani
John M Davis
Dimitris Mavridis
Georgia Salanti
Stefan Leucht
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0317-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medicine 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Lifetime risk of being diagnosed with, or dying from, prostate cancer by major ethnic group in England 2008–2010

Research article

Proxy markers of serum retinol concentration, used alone and in combination, to assess population vitamin A status in Kenyan children: a cross-sectional study

Review

Nutrition, dietary interventions and prostate cancer: the latest evidence

Editorial

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: moving forward

Research article

Hair regrowth in alopecia areata patients following Stem Cell Educator therapy

Commentary

Innocent lives lost and saved: the importance of blood transfusion for children in sub-Saharan Africa