- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Incorrect interpretation or statistical inference error from meta-analysis
- Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis
| Ref ID | 406 |
| First Author | M. J. Page |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2018 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(17)30735-7/fulltext |
| Keywords |
Statistical Expertise Inference Subgroup General medical |
| Problem(s) |
Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data Unplanned or unjustified subgroup or sensitivity analyses Incorrect interpretation or statistical inference error from meta-analysis |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 110 |
| Summary of Findings | For the primary meta-analysis of each included systematic review, just over half (56%) used the random-effects model, but few (8%) interpreted the meta-analytic effect correctly or presented an accompanying prediction interval. In the 15% of overall reviews displaying funnel plot asymmetry only 24% included the recommended number of at least 10 studies. In the 38% of overall reviews which presented subgroup analyses, findings were not interpreted with respect to a test for interaction in 69% of cases and the issue of potential confounding in the subgroup analyses was not raised in any systematic review. For the 50% of overall reviews that did sensitivity analyses, no rationale was provided for any of the sensitivity analyses accompanying 73% of index meta-analyses. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |