| Ref ID | 21 |
| First Author | L. F. M. de Rezende |
| Journal | PLOS BIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2018 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6023226/pdf/pbio.2005761.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Cardiology • Multiplicity • Pre-specification • Low reporting quality |
| Problem(s) |
• Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Small number of trials in meta-analyses • Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect) • High risk of bias (ROBIS) • Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Meta-epidemiological analysis |
| First Author Country | Brazil |
| Checklists |
• ROBIS |
| Aim | To assess reporting bias and the risk of bias (ROBIS) in systematic reviews of the associations of health-related behaviour and statins with cardiovascular disease mortality and all-cause mortality published between 2010 and 2016 |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | Of the included 49 systematic reviews, the majority (90%) exhibited a high overall risk of bias, related to study eligibility criteria, identification and selection of studies, data collection and study appraisal, and synthesis and findings. 111 meta-analyses conducted across the reviews, of which 65% had statistically significant results (P < 0.05) were re-performed. Around 22% of health-related behaviour meta-analyses showed small-study effect, as compared to none of statin meta-analyses. Physical activity and the smoking research areas had more than 40% of meta-analyses with small-study effect. There was evidence of excess significance in 26% of health-related behaviour meta-analyses, as compared to none of statin meta-analyses. Half of the meta-analyses from physical activity, 26% from diet, 18% from sedentary behaviour, 14% for smoking, and 12% from alcohol showed evidence of excess significance bias. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 49 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 5511 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | No |
| Interpretation impacted description |