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	• General medical • Subgroup • Statistical • Expertise • Inference
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes