6 research outputs found
Methodological quality of meta-analyses: matched-pairs comparison over time and between industry-sponsored and academic-sponsored reports
No full textContext: Meta-analyses are regularly used to inform healthcare decisions. Concerns have been expressed about the quality of meta-analyses and, in particular, about those supported by the pharmaceutical industry. Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the quality of pharmaceutical-industry-supported meta-analyses with academic meta-analyses and of meta-analyses published before and after companies started to disclose their data. Data Sources: We identified industry-supported meta-analyses by searching the Scopus bibliographic database, using author affiliations. We matched each industry-supported meta-analysis with an academic meta-analysis using high-level MeSH terms in PubMed. Study Selection: We included meta-analyses of randomized trials assessing the efficacy or safety of any pharmaceutical intervention in humans, published in 2002–2004 or 2008–2009. Cochrane reviews were excluded. Two individuals independently selected papers, with discrepancies resolved by two further individuals. Assessment: We developed and piloted a quality-assessment tool, consisting of 43 questions in four domains, with a key summary question covering each domain. Two individuals independently assessed each meta-analysis. Results: We examined 126 meta-analysis publications in 63 matched pairs. The average quality was low, with fewer than 50% adequate in three of the four domains. Industry-supported meta-analyses less ofte
Methodological quality of meta-analyses: matched-pairs comparison over time and between industry-sponsored and academic-sponsored reports
No full textA tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis
No full textBackground: Because meta-analyses are increasingly prevalent and cited in the medical literature, it is important that tools are available to assess their methodological quality. When performing an empirical study of the quality of published meta-analyses, we found that existing tools did not place a strong emphasis on statistical and interpretational issues. Methods: We developed a quality-assessment tool using existing materials and expert judgment as a starting point, followed by multiple iterations of input from our working group, piloting, and discussion. After having used the tool for our empirical study, agreement for four key items in the tool was measured using weighted kappa coefficients. Results: Our tool contained 43 items divided into four key areas (data sources, analysis of individual studies, meta-analysis methods, and interpretation), and each area ended with a summary question. We also produced guidance for completing the tool. Agreement between raters was fair to moderate. Conclusions: The tool should usefully inform subsequent initiatives to develop quality-assessment tools for meta-analysis. We advocate use of consensus between independent raters when assessing statistical appropriateness and adequacy of interpretation in meta-analyses
