Reporting bias in the literature on the associations of health-related behaviors and statins with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality

Ref ID 21
First Author L. F. M. de Rezende
Year Of Publishing 2018
Keywords Multiplicity
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Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect)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
Number of systematic reviews included 49
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.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? No
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes