- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
- Heterogeneity of systematic reviews in oncology
| Ref ID | 69 |
| First Author | J. Holmes |
| Journal | BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER PROCEEDINGS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2017 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5349813/pdf/bumc0030-0163.pdf |
| Keywords |
Heterogeneity Oncology |
| Problem(s) |
Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 182 |
| Summary of Findings | 182 oncology systematic reviews across 4 journals were included. Of these, 50% (91/182) used varying combinations of heterogeneity tests, and of those, 16% (15/91) of review authors noted excessive heterogeneity and opted to not perform a meta-analysis. Of the studies that measured heterogeneity, 51% (46/91) used a random-effects model, 7% (8/91) used a fixed-effects model, and 43% (39/91) used both. We conclude that use of quantitative and qualitative heterogeneity measurement tools are underused in the 4 oncology journals evaluated. Such assessments should be routinely applied in 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? | No |