| Ref ID | 1013 |
| First Author | A. Ferreira |
| Journal | EYE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
| URL | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-023-02599-5 |
| Keywords |
• Heterogeneity • Neurology |
| Problem(s) |
• Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data • Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity • Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality |
| Article Type | Editorial |
| Article Subtype | Comment/letter |
| First Author Country | Portugal |
| Aim | A letter concerning 2 Systemic Reviews (SRs) with meta-analysis on the same topic (Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCTA) for assessment of retinal microvasculature in Parkinson’s Disease) with methodological differences in the meta-analysis, and their consequences. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From a letter to the editor concerning 2 Systemic Reviews (SRs) published in 2023 on the same topic (Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCTA) for assessment of retinal microvasculature in Parkinson’s Disease) with methodological differences in the meta-analysis, and their consequences. One Systematic Review excluded studies deemed low quality, but did not perform a sensitivity or sub-group analysis, while the other only included fully published original papers and excluded a conference abstract present in the other SR. Neither of the systematic reviews explored the source of the high heterogeneity (>70%) found in both. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 2 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 2 |
| Treatment impacted | Not Applicable |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |