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